From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryo Tsuruta Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2 Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:23:09 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20090511.202309.112614168.ryov__38364.7343297072$1242041142$gmane$org@valinux.co.jp> References: <20090506023332.GA1212@redhat.com> <20090507.091858.226775723.ryov@valinux.co.jp> <20090507012559.GC4187@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090507012559.GC4187-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: vgoyal-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org Cc: dhaval-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, snitzer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, paolo.valente-rcYM44yAMweonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org, fernando-gVGce1chcLdL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org, jmoyer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, fchecconi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, righi.andrea-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Hi Vivek, From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2 Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 21:25:59 -0400 > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:18:58AM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote: > > Hi Vivek, > > > > > Ryo, dm-ioband breaks the notion of classes and priority of CFQ because > > > of FIFO dispatch of buffered bios. Apart from that it tries to provide > > > fairness in terms of actual IO done and that would mean a seeky workload > > > will can use disk for much longer to get equivalent IO done and slow down > > > other applications. Implementing IO controller at IO scheduler level gives > > > us tigher control. Will it not meet your requirements? If you got specific > > > concerns with IO scheduler based contol patches, please highlight these and > > > we will see how these can be addressed. > > > > I'd like to avoid making complicated existing IO schedulers and other > > kernel codes and to give a choice to users whether or not to use it. > > I know that you chose an approach that using compile time options to > > get the same behavior as old system, but device-mapper drivers can be > > added, removed and replaced while system is running. > > > > Same is possible with IO scheduler based controller. If you don't want > cgroup stuff, don't create those. By default everything will be in root > group and you will get the old behavior. > > If you want io controller stuff, just create the cgroup, assign weight > and move task there. So what more choices do you want which are missing > here? What I mean to say is that device-mapper drivers can be completely removed from the kernel if not used. I know that dm-ioband has some issues which can be addressed by your IO controller, but I'm not sure your controller works well. So I would like to see some benchmark results of your IO controller. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta