[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080805.210150.91309965.taka@valinux.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:01:50 +0900 (JST)
From: Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@...inux.co.jp>
To: s-uchida@...jp.nec.com
Cc: righi.andrea@...il.com, ryov@...inux.co.jp, ngupta@...gle.com,
vtaras@...nvz.org, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, agk@...rceware.org
Subject: Re: Too many I/O controller patches
Hi,
> I think that OOM problems caused by memory/cache systems.
> So, it will be better that I/O controller created out of these problems
> first, although a lateness of the I/O device would be related.
> If these problem can be resolved, its technique should be applied into
> normal I/O control as well as cgroups.
Yes, this is one of the problems linux kernel still has, which should
be solved.
But I believe this should be done in the linux memory management layer
including the cgroup memory controller, which has to work correctly
on any type of device with various access speeds.
I think it's better that I/O controllers should only focus on flow of
I/O requests. This approach will keep the implementation of linux
kernel simple.
> Buffered write I/O is also related with cache system.
> We must consider this problem as I/O control.
> I don't have a good way which can resolve this problems.
>
Thank you,
Hirokazu Takahashi.
--
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