Hi Dong-Jae, > range-bw is based on newest version of dm-ioband, bio-cgroup V7(4 > patch files), dm-ioband-V1.10.3(1 patch file) and these can be > referred in > http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/ > http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/bio-cgroup/ > and the below range-bw patch file(dm-ioband-rangebw-1.10.3.patch) > including Ryo’s patch set is also referred in: > http://www.corsetproject.net/browser/corset_source_code/resource_controllers/disk_controller/Range-BW-for-dmioband-V1.10.3 > You have to apply this(dm-ioband-rangebw-1.10.3.patch) patch file > after applying dm-ioband and bio-cgroup patches. > > The released range-bw may have some problems and improper code > although I try to test heavily. It is first release ^^ > And it is required to reduce the overhead of I/O scheduling and to > optimize the source code. > Any comments or advices is welcome > > Ryo Tsuruta, Can you check this patch file ? > for convenience, patch file is attached in this mail. I took a quick look at your patch. It seems to be no problem for existing dm-ioband code, but I would suggest you that you had better use checkpatch.pl to check for your coding style. The patch could be applied and compiled successfully. I did a simple test, running fio on each cgroup in 30 seconds simultaneously, and got the following results. w/o range-bw w/ range-bw (min&max-bw settings) cgroup1 331KB/s 102KB/s (100KB) cgroup2 331KB/s 196KB/s (200KB) Do you have any benchmark resutls? I'd be very interested to see it. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta _______________________________________________Containers mailing listContainers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
