[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Too many I/O controller patches
    Satoshi UCHIDA wrote:
    > Andrea's requirement is
    > * to be able to set and control by absolute(direct) performance.

    * improve IO performance predictability of each cgroup
    (try to guarantee more precise IO performance values)

    > And, he gave a advice "Can't a framework which organized each way,
    > such as I/O elevator, be made?".
    > I try to consider such framework (in elevator layer or block layer).

    It would be probably the best place to evaluate the "cost" of each
    IO operation.

    > I think that OOM problems caused by memory/cache systems.
    > So, it will be better that I/O controller created out of these problems
    > first, although a lateness of the I/O device would be related.
    > If these problem can be resolved, its technique should be applied into
    > normal I/O control as well as cgroups.
    > Buffered write I/O is also related with cache system.
    > We must consider this problem as I/O control.

    Agree. At least, maybe we should consider if an IO controller could be
    a valid solution also for these problems.

    >> I did some experiments trying to implement minimum bandwidth requirements
    >> for my io-throttle controller, mapping the requirements to CFQ prio and
    >> using the Satoshi's controller. But this needs additional work and
    >> testing right now, so I've not posted anything yet, just informed
    >> Satoshi about this.
    > I'm very interested in this results.

    I'll collect some numbers and keep you informed.


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-05 13:23    [W:0.023 / U:6.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site