Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752743AbYKFQQe (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:16:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754068AbYKFQQU (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:16:20 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:41368 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754049AbYKFQQU (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:16:20 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] [RFC] Another proportional weight IO controller From: Peter Zijlstra To: Vivek Goyal Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, Hirokazu Takahashi , Ryo Tsuruta , Andrea Righi , Satoshi UCHIDA , fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Andrew Morton , menage@google.com, ngupta@google.com, Rik van Riel , Jeff Moyer In-Reply-To: <20081106160154.GA7461@redhat.com> References: <20081106153022.215696930@redhat.com> <1225986593.7803.4688.camel@twins> <20081106160154.GA7461@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:16:13 +0100 Message-Id: <1225988173.7803.4723.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1402 Lines: 32 On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 11:01 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > Does this still require I use dm, or does it also work on regular block > > devices? Patch 4/4 isn't quite clear on this. > > No. You don't have to use dm. It will simply work on regular devices. We > shall have to put few lines of code for it to work on devices which don't > make use of standard __make_request() function and provide their own > make_request function. > > Hence for example, I have put that few lines of code so that it can work > with dm device. I shall have to do something similar for md too. > > Though, I am not very sure why do I need to do IO control on higher level > devices. Will it be sufficient if we just control only bottom most > physical block devices? > > Anyway, this approach should work at any level. Nice, although I would think only doing the higher level devices makes more sense than only doing the leafs. Is there any reason we cannot merge this with the regular io-scheduler interface? afaik the only problem with doing group scheduling in the io-schedulers is the stacked devices issue. Could we make the io-schedulers aware of this hierarchy? -- 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/