On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 07:34:14PM +0900, 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. > I don't insist the interface of dm-ioband is the best. I just hope the > cgroup infrastructure support this kind of resources. > Sorry, I did not understand fully. Can you please explain in detail what kind of situation will not be covered by cgroup interface. Thanks Vivek -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
