Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrea Righi <> | Subject | Re: Too many I/O controller patches | Date | Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:28:27 +0200 (MEST) |
| |
Satoshi UCHIDA wrote: > Andrea's requirement is > * to be able to set and control by absolute(direct) performance.
* improve IO performance predictability of each cgroup (try to guarantee more precise IO performance values)
> And, he gave a advice "Can't a framework which organized each way, > such as I/O elevator, be made?". > I try to consider such framework (in elevator layer or block layer).
It would be probably the best place to evaluate the "cost" of each IO operation.
> I think that OOM problems caused by memory/cache systems. > So, it will be better that I/O controller created out of these problems > first, although a lateness of the I/O device would be related. > If these problem can be resolved, its technique should be applied into > normal I/O control as well as cgroups. > > Buffered write I/O is also related with cache system. > We must consider this problem as I/O control.
Agree. At least, maybe we should consider if an IO controller could be a valid solution also for these problems.
>> I did some experiments trying to implement minimum bandwidth requirements >> for my io-throttle controller, mapping the requirements to CFQ prio and >> using the Satoshi's controller. But this needs additional work and >> testing right now, so I've not posted anything yet, just informed >> Satoshi about this. > > I'm very interested in this results.
I'll collect some numbers and keep you informed.
-Andrea
| |