From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763154AbYALK5Y (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:57:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761031AbYALK5R (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:57:17 -0500 Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.154]:46764 "EHLO e36.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760587AbYALK5Q (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Jan 2008 05:57:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:27:02 +0530 From: Balbir Singh To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, righiandr@users.sourceforge.net, LKML , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] per-task I/O throttling Message-ID: <20080112105702.GC25388@balbir.in.ibm.com> Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mail-Followup-To: Peter Zijlstra , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, righiandr@users.sourceforge.net, LKML , Jens Axboe References: <47869FFE.1050000@users.sourceforge.net> <661de9470801110759h318347acw5f08c91b48ca742d@mail.gmail.com> <47879A32.8060508@users.sourceforge.net> <3777.1200113861@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <1200131197.7999.14.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1200131197.7999.14.camel@lappy> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra [2008-01-12 10:46:37]: > > On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 23:57 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:32:49 +0100, Andrea Righi said: > > > > > The interesting feature is that it allows to set a priority for each > > > process container, but AFAIK it doesn't allow to "partition" the > > > bandwidth between different containers (that would be a nice feature > > > IMHO). For example it would be great to be able to define per-container > > > limits, like assign 10MB/s for processes in container A, 30MB/s to > > > container B, 20MB/s to container C, etc. > > > > Has anybody considered allocating based on *seeks* rather than bytes moved, > > or counting seeks as "virtual bytes" for the purposes of accounting (if the > > disk can do 50mbytes/sec, and a seek takes 5millisecs, then count it as 100K > > of data)? > > I was considering a time scheduler, you can fill your time slot with > seeks or data, it might be what CFQ does, but I've never even read the > code. > So far the definition of I/O bandwidth has been w.r.t time. Not all IO devices have sectors; I'd prefer bytes over a period of time. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL