Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:33:59 +0900 (JST) | Subject | Re: [patch 0/4] [RFC] Another proportional weight IO controller | From | Ryo Tsuruta <> |
| |
Hi Vivek,
> > > Ryo, do you still want to stick to two level scheduling? Given the problem > > > of it breaking down underlying scheduler's assumptions, probably it makes > > > more sense to the IO control at each individual IO scheduler. > > > > I don't want to stick to it. I'm considering implementing dm-ioband's > > algorithm into the block I/O layer experimentally. > > Thanks Ryo. Implementing a control at block layer sounds like another > 2 level scheduling. We will still have the issue of breaking underlying > CFQ and other schedulers. How to plan to resolve that conflict.
I think there is no conflict against I/O schedulers. Could you expain to me about the conflict?
> What do you think about the solution at IO scheduler level (like BFQ) or > may be little above that where one can try some code sharing among IO > schedulers?
I would like to support any type of block device even if I/Os issued to the underlying device doesn't go through IO scheduler. Dm-ioband can be made use of for the devices such as loop device.
Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta
| |