Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:34:34 +0900 | From | "MinChan Kim" <> | Subject | Re: [Question] power management related with cgroup based resource management |
| |
Hi, Dong-Jae.
> In some aspect, your opinion is right. > Existing controller(ex. disk IO controllers) can be run on new HW > devices(ex. SSD), existing block layer and so on. > > but, what I mean is that such controllers can support more performance > if the controllers are rewrited with reconsideration of the features > of new HW devices. in other words, what I mean can be optimization of > controllers for new devices > For example, > In case of SSD, current IO scheduler layer is needed ? although i can > not sure about it ^^ > or process sleep is needed after throwing the IO requests to storage ? > the role of page cache in SSD or NVRAM is less important than in > normal HDD and ....
What you mention is already included in 2.6.28 merge window. I think we can use this feature on NVRAM, too.
http://lwn.net/Articles/303270/
> I heard that many research centers in comanies and universities have > studied about smiliar research > of course, it can be OS itself, device drivers, block layer, file > systems and memory management > > Under this trend, > I just wonder whether the trend can be reflected to cgroup based > controllers or not. > and whether it is meaningful or not? > How do you think about this? > My opinion may be some humble ^^
I think it's not cgroup controller's role but each subsystem's one. As you can see above article, Many mainline guys try to improve performance in each subsystems.
Do you have a scenario or idea how to use cgroup frame work to manage devices like NVRAM, SSD ??
> Thank you > -- > Best Regards, > Dong-Jae Kang > -- > 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/ >
-- Kinds regards, MinChan Kim
| |