Hi, Dong-Jae. > In some aspect, your opinion is right. > Existing controller(ex. disk IO controllers) can be run on new HW > devices(ex. SSD), existing block layer and so on. > > but, what I mean is that such controllers can support more performance > if the controllers are rewrited with reconsideration of the features > of new HW devices. in other words, what I mean can be optimization of > controllers for new devices > For example, > In case of SSD, current IO scheduler layer is needed ? although i can > not sure about it ^^ > or process sleep is needed after throwing the IO requests to storage ? > the role of page cache in SSD or NVRAM is less important than in > normal HDD and .... What you mention is already included in 2.6.28 merge window. I think we can use this feature on NVRAM, too. http://lwn.net/Articles/303270/ > I heard that many research centers in comanies and universities have > studied about smiliar research > of course, it can be OS itself, device drivers, block layer, file > systems and memory management > > Under this trend, > I just wonder whether the trend can be reflected to cgroup based > controllers or not. > and whether it is meaningful or not? > How do you think about this? > My opinion may be some humble ^^ I think it's not cgroup controller's role but each subsystem's one. As you can see above article, Many mainline guys try to improve performance in each subsystems. Do you have a scenario or idea how to use cgroup frame work to manage devices like NVRAM, SSD ?? > Thank you > -- > Best Regards, > Dong-Jae Kang > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- Kinds regards, MinChan Kim _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
