lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [patch 0/4] [RFC] Another proportional weight IO controller
Date
Hi, Vivek.

> > I think that a controller should be divided share among "/(root)" and
> two groups.
> > This reason is follows:
> >
> > * If these tasks are handled at same level, it is enough by using a
> traditional
> > CFQ scheduler.
> > If you want to make all tasks in the same group the same
> priority(parameter),
> > It is not I/O control but is parameter control.
> >
> > * I think that the group means the environment which makes some sense
> and
> > user want to control I/O per groups.
> > Next, the group is the environment. So, tasks within the group will
> have
> > priorities for themselves respectively as traditional environment.
> > Of course, group may not be need to control I/O.
> > In such time, a ioprio of tasks should be set the same priority.
> >
> > Therefore, our scheduler controls among group and then among tasks
>
> I would suggest abandoning this scheme as its different from how the CPU
> scheduler does it. The CPU scheduler is fully hierarchical and tasks in
> "/" are on the same level as groups in "/".
>
> That is, we do:
>
> root
> / | \
> 1 2 A
> / \
> B 3
> / \
> 4 5
>
> Where digits are tasks, and letters are groups.
>
> Having the two bandwidth (CPU, I/O) doing different things wrt grouping
> can only be confusing at best.
>


I understand what you mean is as follows.
CPU power for 4 is calculated by 100% * a ratio of A (among 1, 2 and A) *
a ratio of B (among 3 and B) * ratio of 4 (among 4 and 5).
However, I/O power for 4 is calculated by 100% * a ratio of B (among root, A and B) *
a ratio of 4 (among 4 and 5).
Therefore, its power expression is a different and then user will confuse.

So, in other cgroups controllers, children(tasks and groups) of a group are flat,
but in CFQ cgroups controllers, all groups are flat.


I agree this opinion.

I think that CFQ should support multiple layers, and
its improvement would be easy (by nesting cfq_data tree) probably.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-14 11:09    [W:0.199 / U:0.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site