Re: IO scheduler based IO Controller V2

[Rik van Riel]

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.

I do not believe that every use of cgroups will end up with
a separate logical volume for each group.

In fact, if you look at group-per-UID usage, which could be
quite common on shared web servers and shell servers, I would
expect all the groups to share the same filesystem.

I do not believe dm-ioband would be useful in that configuration,
while the IO scheduler based IO controller will just work.

--
All rights reversed.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/