Message-ID: <49B8810B.7030603@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:27:07 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
CC: nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com,
       mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it,
       jens.axboe@oracle.com, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@intellilink.co.jp,
       s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp, guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com,
       arozansk@redhat.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, oz-kernel@redhat.com,
       dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, menage@google.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] IO Controller
References: <1236823015-4183-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <1236823015-4183-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2364
Lines: 66

Hi Vivek,

Could you tell me to which kernel I can apply your patches?
   # latest mm?
I would like to test your controller.

Thank you,
   Takuya Yoshikawa


Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Here is another posting for IO controller patches. Last time I had posted
> RFC patches for an IO controller which did bio control per cgroup.
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/6/227
> 
> One of the takeaway from the discussion in this thread was that let us
> implement a common layer which contains the proportional weight scheduling
> code which can be shared by all the IO schedulers.
> 
> Implementing IO controller will not cover the devices which don't use
> IO schedulers but it should cover the common case.
> 
> There were more discussions regarding 2 level vs 1 level IO control at
> following link.
> 
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2009-January/015402.html
> 
> So in the mean time we took the discussion off the list and spent time on
> making the 1 level control apporoach work where majority of the proportional
> weight control is shared by the four schedulers instead of each one having
> to replicate the code. We make use of BFQ code for fair queuing as posted
> by Paolo and Fabio here.
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/11/148
> 
> Details about design and howto have been put in documentation patch.
> 
> I have done very basic testing of running 2 or 3 "dd" threads in different
> cgroups. Wanted to get the patchset out for feedback/review before we dive
> into more bug fixing, benchmarking, optimizations etc.
> 
> Your feedback/comments are welcome.
> 
> Patch series contains 10 patches. It should be compilable and bootable after
> every patch. Intial 2 patches implement flat fair queuing (no cgroup
> support) and make cfq to use that. Later patches introduce hierarchical
> fair queuing support in elevator layer and modify other IO schdulers to use
> that.
> 
> Thanks
> Vivek
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
> 

--
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/