Hirokazu Takahashi wrote: > Hi, > >>> It's possible the algorithm of dm-ioband can be placed in the block layer >>> if it is really a big problem. >>> But I doubt it can control every control block I/O as we wish since >>> the interface the cgroup supports is quite poor. >> Had a question regarding cgroup interface. I am assuming that in a system, >> one will be using other controllers as well apart from IO-controller. >> Other controllers will be using cgroup as a grouping mechanism. >> Now coming up with additional grouping mechanism for only io-controller seems >> little odd to me. It will make the job of higher level management software >> harder. >> >> Looking at the dm-ioband grouping examples given in patches, I think cases >> of grouping based in pid, pgrp, uid and kvm can be handled by creating right >> cgroup and making sure applications are launched/moved into right cgroup by >> user space tools. > > Grouping in pid, pgrp and uid is not the point, which I've been thinking > can be replaced with cgroup once the implementation of bio-cgroup is done. > > I think problems of cgroup are that they can't support lots of storages > and hotplug devices, it just handle them as if they were just one resource. Could you elaborate on this please? > I don't insist the interface of dm-ioband is the best. I just hope the > cgroup infrastructure support this kind of resources. > What sort of support will help you? -- Balbir -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
