On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 01:18:05AM +0800, Tao Ma wrote: [..] > > I think a large chunk of that iops scheduler code will be borrowed from > > CFQ code. All the cgroup logic, queue creation logic, group scheduling > > logic etc. And that's the reason I was still exploring the possibility > > of having common code base. > Yeah, actually I was thinking of abstracting a generic logic, but it > seems a lot bit hard. Maybe we can try to unify the code later? I think if we change the cfqq scheduling logic to something similar to group scheduling logic, it will help a lot. - Current virtual time based logic does not care whether you are operating in time mode or iops mode. Switching cfqq logic to similar logic will help moving to iops mode quickly. - Keeping track of vtime will help that we will get rid of all the residual time logic. If some queue was preempted, and did not use full slice, we will automaticlally charge it less and give smaller vtime. - Keeping both the scheduling logic will enable us the smoother integration of both cfqq and group logic once we support hierarchical cgroups. - It will also enable easier integration of iops related logic. So I am in favor of cleaning up CFQ code and change it to deal with both time as well iops. Seriously, implmenting time or iops is not hard. It is about rest of the logic like trees, groups which contributes towards bulk of the code and I am really not convinced that iops scheduler is going to be different enough that it needs new io scheduler. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
