[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm linux-foundation org>
- To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>
- Cc: dhaval linux vnet ibm com, snitzer redhat com, dm-devel redhat com, dpshah google com, jens axboe oracle com, agk redhat com, balbir linux vnet ibm com, paolo valente unimore it, guijianfeng cn fujitsu com, fernando oss ntt co jp, mikew google com, jmoyer redhat com, nauman google com, vgoyal redhat com, m-ikeda ds jp nec com, lizf cn fujitsu com, fchecconi gmail com, containers lists linux-foundation org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, s-uchida ap jp nec com, righi andrea gmail com
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2
- Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 20:38:02 -0000
On Tue, 5 May 2009 15:58:27 -0400
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> Here is the V2 of the IO controller patches generated on top of 2.6.30-rc4.
> ...
> Currently primarily two other IO controller proposals are out there.
>
> dm-ioband
> ---------
> This patch set is from Ryo Tsuruta from valinux.
> ...
> IO-throttling
> -------------
> This patch set is from Andrea Righi provides max bandwidth controller.
I'm thinking we need to lock you guys in a room and come back in 15 minutes.
Seriously, how are we to resolve this? We could lock me in a room and
cmoe back in 15 days, but there's no reason to believe that I'd emerge
with the best answer.
I tend to think that a cgroup-based controller is the way to go.
Anything else will need to be wired up to cgroups _anyway_, and that
might end up messy.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]