linux-kernel

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <20090312134305.GB10919@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:43:05 -0400
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
	mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, ryov@...inux.co.jp,
	fernando@...ellilink.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
	taka@...inux.co.jp, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com,
	arozansk@...hat.com, jmoyer@...hat.com, oz-kernel@...hat.com,
	dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	menage@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] IO Controller

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:27:07PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
> Could you tell me to which kernel I can apply your patches?
>   # latest mm?
> I would like to test your controller.
>

Hi Takuya,

These apply on linus git tree (2.6.29-rc7).

Thanks
Vivek

> Thank you,
>   Takuya Yoshikawa
>
>
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Here is another posting for IO controller patches. Last time I had posted
>> RFC patches for an IO controller which did bio control per cgroup.
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/6/227
>>
>> One of the takeaway from the discussion in this thread was that let us
>> implement a common layer which contains the proportional weight scheduling
>> code which can be shared by all the IO schedulers.
>>
>> Implementing IO controller will not cover the devices which don't use
>> IO schedulers but it should cover the common case.
>>
>> There were more discussions regarding 2 level vs 1 level IO control at
>> following link.
>>
>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/containers/2009-January/015402.html
>>
>> So in the mean time we took the discussion off the list and spent time on
>> making the 1 level control apporoach work where majority of the proportional
>> weight control is shared by the four schedulers instead of each one having
>> to replicate the code. We make use of BFQ code for fair queuing as posted
>> by Paolo and Fabio here.
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/11/11/148
>>
>> Details about design and howto have been put in documentation patch.
>>
>> I have done very basic testing of running 2 or 3 "dd" threads in different
>> cgroups. Wanted to get the patchset out for feedback/review before we dive
>> into more bug fixing, benchmarking, optimizations etc.
>>
>> Your feedback/comments are welcome.
>>
>> Patch series contains 10 patches. It should be compilable and bootable after
>> every patch. Intial 2 patches implement flat fair queuing (no cgroup
>> support) and make cfq to use that. Later patches introduce hierarchical
>> fair queuing support in elevator layer and modify other IO schdulers to use
>> that.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Vivek
>> _______________________________________________
>> Containers mailing list
>> Containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
>>
--
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/

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