Hi Vivek, > > > Ryo, do you still want to stick to two level scheduling? Given the problem > > > of it breaking down underlying scheduler's assumptions, probably it makes > > > more sense to the IO control at each individual IO scheduler. > > > > I don't want to stick to it. I'm considering implementing dm-ioband's > > algorithm into the block I/O layer experimentally. > > Thanks Ryo. Implementing a control at block layer sounds like another > 2 level scheduling. We will still have the issue of breaking underlying > CFQ and other schedulers. How to plan to resolve that conflict. I think there is no conflict against I/O schedulers. Could you expain to me about the conflict? > What do you think about the solution at IO scheduler level (like BFQ) or > may be little above that where one can try some code sharing among IO > schedulers? I would like to support any type of block device even if I/Os issued to the underlying device doesn't go through IO scheduler. Dm-ioband can be made use of for the devices such as loop device. Thanks, Ryo Tsuruta _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
