similar to: RFC: Attaching threads to cgroups is OK?

We try to keep the defconfig untouched after decoupling CONFIG_VHOST out of CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION in commit 20c384f1ea1a ("vhost: refine vhost and vringh kconfig") by enabling VHOST_MENU by default. Then the defconfigs can keep enabling CONFIG_VHOST_NET without the caring of CONFIG_VHOST. But this will leave a "CONFIG_VHOST_MENU=y" in all defconfigs and even for the ones that

We try to keep the defconfig untouched after decoupling CONFIG_VHOST out of CONFIG_VIRTUALIZATION in commit 20c384f1ea1a ("vhost: refine vhost and vringh kconfig") by enabling VHOST_MENU by default. Then the defconfigs can keep enabling CONFIG_VHOST_NET without the caring of CONFIG_VHOST. But this will leave a "CONFIG_VHOST_MENU=y" in all defconfigs and even for the ones that

Hi all, With this series of patches, you can determine the owners of any type of I/Os. I ported the previous version to linux-2.6.26-rc2-mm1. This makes dm-ioband -- I/O bandwidth controller -- be able to control the Block I/O bandwidths even when it accepts delayed write requests. Dm-ioband can find the owner cgroup of each request. It is also possible that OpenVz team and NEC Uchida-san team

Hi all, With this series of patches, you can determine the owners of any type of I/Os. I ported the previous version to linux-2.6.26-rc2-mm1. This makes dm-ioband -- I/O bandwidth controller -- be able to control the Block I/O bandwidths even when it accepts delayed write requests. Dm-ioband can find the owner cgroup of each request. It is also possible that OpenVz team and NEC Uchida-san team

Hello, I have summarized the topics for the IO controller mini-summit and written the ideas seen in the mailing list. - The place where IO controller should be implemented - Block layer in conjunction with the IO scheduler - Common layer right above the IO scheduler - CFQ enhancement. - Both block and common layer, users can select whichever controller they want. - VFS layer -

Hello, I have summarized the topics for the IO controller mini-summit and written the ideas seen in the mailing list. - The place where IO controller should be implemented - Block layer in conjunction with the IO scheduler - Common layer right above the IO scheduler - CFQ enhancement. - Both block and common layer, users can select whichever controller they want. - VFS layer -

Hello, I have summarized the topics for the IO controller mini-summit and written the ideas seen in the mailing list. - The place where IO controller should be implemented - Block layer in conjunction with the IO scheduler - Common layer right above the IO scheduler - CFQ enhancement. - Both block and common layer, users can select whichever controller they want. - VFS layer -

Hi All, I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, that controls the disk I/O bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests. In this time, I ran some benchmarks with a high-end storage. The reason was to avoid a performance bottleneck due to mechanical factors such as seek time. You can see the details of the benchmarks at: http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/hps/ Thanks, Ryo

Hi All, I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, that controls the disk I/O bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests. In this time, I ran some benchmarks with a high-end storage. The reason was to avoid a performance bottleneck due to mechanical factors such as seek time. You can see the details of the benchmarks at: http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/hps/ Thanks, Ryo

Hi All, I have got excellent results of dm-ioband, that controls the disk I/O bandwidth even when it accepts delayed write requests. In this time, I ran some benchmarks with a high-end storage. The reason was to avoid a performance bottleneck due to mechanical factors such as seek time. You can see the details of the benchmarks at: http://people.valinux.co.jp/~ryov/dm-ioband/hps/ Thanks, Ryo

Hi, If you are not already tired of so many io controller implementations, here is another one. This is a very eary very crude implementation to get early feedback to see if this approach makes any sense or not. This controller is a proportional weight IO controller primarily based on/inspired by dm-ioband. One of the things I personally found little odd about dm-ioband was need of a dm-ioband

Hi, If you are not already tired of so many io controller implementations, here is another one. This is a very eary very crude implementation to get early feedback to see if this approach makes any sense or not. This controller is a proportional weight IO controller primarily based on/inspired by dm-ioband. One of the things I personally found little odd about dm-ioband was need of a dm-ioband

Hi everyone, This series of patches of dm-ioband now includes "The bio tracking mechanism," which has been posted individually to this mailing list. This makes it easy for anybody to control the I/O bandwidth even when the I/O is one of delayed-write requests. Have fun! This series of patches consists of two parts: 1. dm-ioband Dm-ioband is an I/O bandwidth controller implemented

Hi everyone, This series of patches of dm-ioband now includes "The bio tracking mechanism," which has been posted individually to this mailing list. This makes it easy for anybody to control the I/O bandwidth even when the I/O is one of delayed-write requests. Have fun! This series of patches consists of two parts: 1. dm-ioband Dm-ioband is an I/O bandwidth controller implemented

Hi everyone, This series of patches of dm-ioband now includes "The bio tracking mechanism," which has been posted individually to this mailing list. This makes it easy for anybody to control the I/O bandwidth even when the I/O is one of delayed-write requests. Have fun! This series of patches consists of two parts: 1. dm-ioband Dm-ioband is an I/O bandwidth controller implemented

Hi Jason, I love your patch! Yet something to improve: [auto build test ERROR on vhost/linux-next] [also build test ERROR on next-20200414] [cannot apply to powerpc/next s390/features v5.7-rc1] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system. BTW, we also suggest to use '--base' option to specify the base tree in git format-patch, please

Dear ALL Our company make and sell some measurement system controlled by Server. There is no technical issue but we don't have enough information about license. We will do the following, 1) We make the DVD image which include CentOS and our application. 2) Sell DVD to our customer. 3) Customer installs this image (CentOS and our applications) on the Server. Question 1 Is there no problem

Hello https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/ According to above, I found following message. ---------------------- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in these Guidelines, the following are examples of unacceptable uses: 1.Use of the CentOS Marks in connection with commercial redistribution of CentOS software ---------------------- I have a question. What means "Use of the

Hi, The following patch adds ioprio to blktrace. Explanation: As you know, I/O schedulers such as cfq use io_contexts of current tasks to schedule block I/O. But recently, some are suggesting to use more appropriate io_contexts obtained by, for example, doing io-tracking, making struct bio have io_context member, etc. I thought adding ioprio to blktrace output might be helpful. Implementation:

and nice. My concern is "bio_cgroup_id". It's provided only for bio_cgroup. In this summer, I tried to add swap_cgroup_id only for mem+swap controller but commenters said "please provide "id and lookup" in cgroup layer, it should be useful." And I agree them. (and postponed it ;) Could you try "id" in cgroup layer ? How do you think, Paul and others ?