On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 08:48 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:> On Wed, 2008-08-06 at 15:41 +0900, Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao wrote:> > > I agree with your plan.> > > We keep bio-cgroup improving and porting to the latest kernel.> > Having more users of bio-cgroup would probably help to get it merged, so> > we'll certainly send patches as soon as we get our cfq prototype in> > shape.> > I'm confused. Are these two of the competing controllers? Or are the> complementary in some way?Sorry, I did not explain myself correctly. I was not referring to a newIO _controller_, I was just trying to say that the traditional IO_schedulers_ already present in the mainstream kernel would benefit fromproper IO tracking too. As an example, the current implementation of CFQassumes that all IO is generated in the IO context of the current task,which in only true in the synchronous path. This renders CFQ almostunusable for controlling of asynchronous and buffered IO. Of course CFQis not to blame here, since it has no way to tell who the realoriginator of the IO was (CFQ just sees IO requests coming from pdflushand other kernel threads). However, once we have a working IO tracking infrastructure in place, theexisting IO _schedulers_ could be modified so that they use it todetermine the real owner/originator of asynchronous and buffered IO.This can be done without turning IO schedulers into IO resourcecontrollers. If we can demonstrate that a IO tracking infrastructurewould also be beneficial outside the cgroups arena, it should be easierto get it merged. _______________________________________________Virtualization mailing listVirtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
