lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Too many I/O controller patches
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 11:28 +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
    > > 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.

    Isn't this one of the core points that we keep going back and forth
    over? It seems like people are arguing in circles over this:

    Do we:
    1. control potential memory usage by throttling I/O
    or
    2. Throttle I/O when memory is full

    I might lean toward (1) if we didn't already have a memory controller.
    But, we have one, and it works. Also, we *already* do (2) in the
    kernel, so it would seem to graft well onto existing mechanisms that we
    have.

    I/O controllers should not worry about memory. They're going to have a
    hard enough time getting the I/O part right. :)

    Or, am I over-simplifying this?

    -- Dave


    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-08-05 18:23    [W:0.022 / U:0.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site