[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:0.184 / U:3.568 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site