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. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
