Balbir Singh wrote: > * Andrea Righi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-15 17:49:36]: > >> Allow to limit the I/O bandwidth for specific uid(s) or gid(s) imposing >> additional delays on those processes that exceed the limits defined in a >> configfs tree. >> >> Examples: >> >> Limit the I/O bandwidth for user www-data (UID 33) to 4MB/s: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle# mkdir uid:33 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle# cd uid:33/ >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle/uid:33# cat io-rate >> io-rate: 0 KiB/sec >> requested: 0 KiB >> last_request: 0 jiffies >> delta: 388202 jiffies >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle/uid:33# echo 4096 > io-rate >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle/uid:33# cat io-rate >> io-rate: 4096 KiB/sec >> requested: 0 KiB >> last_request: 389271 jiffies >> delta: 91 jiffies >> >> Limit the I/O bandwidth of group backup (GID 34) to 512KB/s: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle# mkdir gid:34 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle# cd gid:34/ >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle/gid:34# cat io-rate >> io-rate: 0 KiB/sec >> requested: 0 KiB >> last_request: 0 jiffies >> delta: 403160 jiffies >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle/gid:34# echo 512 > io-rate >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle/gid:34# cat io-rate >> io-rate: 512 KiB/sec >> requested: 0 KiB >> last_request: 403618 jiffies >> delta: 80 jiffies >> >> Remove the I/O limit for user www-data: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle# echo 0 > uid:33/io-rate >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle# cat uid:33/io-rate >> io-rate: 0 KiB/sec >> requested: 0 KiB >> last_request: 419009 jiffies >> delta: 568 jiffies >> >> or: >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/config/io-throttle# rmdir uid:33 >> >> Future improvements: >> * allow to limit also I/O operations per second (instead of KB/s only) >> * extend grouping criteria (allow to define rules based on process >> containers, >> process command, etc.) >> >> Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Hi, Andrea, > > Thanks for doing this. I am going to review the patches in greater > detail and also test them. Why do you use configfs when we have a > control group filesystem available for grouping tasks and providing a > file system based interface for control and accounting? >
Well... I didn't choose configfs for a technical reason, but simply because I'm more familiar with it, respect to the other equivalent ways to implement this. But I'll try to look also at the control group approach, I don't know in details all the advantages/disadvantages, but it seems interesting anyway. -Andrea -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
