lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:02:50 +0800 From: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> CC: Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>, Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>, Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com, taka@...inux.co.jp, righi.andrea@...il.com, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, menage@...gle.com, ngupta@...gle.com, riel@...hat.com, jmoyer@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>, paolo.valente@...more.it Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] [RFC] Another proportional weight IO controller Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 02:44:22PM -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote: >> In an attempt to make sure that this discussion leads to >> something useful, we have summarized the points raised in this >> discussion and have come up with a strategy for future. >> The goal of this is to find common ground between all the approaches >> proposed on this mailing list. >> >> 1 Start with Satoshi's latest patches. > > I have had a brief look at both Satoshi's patch and bfq. I kind of like > bfq's patches for keeping track of per cgroup, per queue data structures. > May be we can look there also. > >> 2 Do the following to support propotional division: >> a) Give time slices in proportion to weights (configurable >> option). We can support both priorities and weights by doing >> propotional division between requests with same priorities. >> 3 Schedule time slices using WF2Q+ instead of round robin. >> Test the performance impact (both throughput and jitter in latency). >> 4 Do the following to support the goals of 2 level schedulers: >> a) Limit the request descriptors allocated to each cgroup by adding >> functionality to elv_may_queue() >> b) Add support for putting an absolute limit on IO consumed by a >> cgroup. Such support exists in dm-ioband and is provided by Andrea >> Righi's patches too. > > Does dm-iobnd support abosolute limit? I think till last version they did > not. I have not check the latest version though. > No, dm-ioband still provides weight/share control only. Only Andrea Righi's patches support absolute limit. >> c) Add support (configurable option) to keep track of total disk >> time/sectors/count >> consumed at each device, and factor that into scheduling decision >> (more discussion needed here) >> 5 Support multiple layers of cgroups to align IO controller behavior >> with CPU scheduling behavior (more discussion?) >> 6 Incorporate an IO tracking approach which re-uses memory resource >> controller code but is not dependent on it (may be biocgroup patches from >> dm-ioband can be used here directly) >> 7 Start an offline email thread to keep track of progress on the above >> goals. >> >> Please feel free to add/modify items to the list >> when you respond back. Any comments/suggestions are more than welcome. >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists