Hi,
From: vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [patch 0/4] [RFC] Another proportional weight IO controller
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:30:22 -0500
> Hi,
>
> If you are not already tired of so many io controller implementations, here
> is another one.
>
> This is a very eary very crude implementation to get early feedback to see
> if this approach makes any sense or not.
>
> This controller is a proportional weight IO controller primarily
> based on/inspired by dm-ioband. One of the things I personally found little
> odd about dm-ioband was need of a dm-ioband device for every device we want
> to control. I thought that probably we can make this control per request
> queue and get rid of device mapper driver. This should make configuration
> aspect easy.
>
> I have picked up quite some amount of code from dm-ioband especially for
> biocgroup implementation.
>
> I have done very basic testing and that is running 2-3 dd commands in different
> cgroups on x86_64. Wanted to throw out the code early to get some feedback.
>
> More details about the design and how to are in documentation patch.
>
> Your comments are welcome.
Do you have any benchmark results?
I'm especially interested in the followings:
- Comparison of disk performance with and without the I/O controller patch.
- Put uneven I/O loads. Processes, which belong to a cgroup which is
given a smaller weight than another cgroup, put heavier I/O load
like the following.
echo 1024 > /cgroup/bio/test1/bio.shares
echo 8192 > /cgroup/bio/test2/bio.shares
echo $$ > /cgroup/bio/test1/tasks
dd if=/somefile1-1 of=/dev/null &
dd if=/somefile1-2 of=/dev/null &
...
dd if=/somefile1-100 of=/dev/null
echo $$ > /cgroup/bio/test2/tasks
dd if=/somefile2-1 of=/dev/null &
dd if=/somefile2-2 of=/dev/null &
...
dd if=/somefile2-10 of=/dev/null &
Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
