linux-kernel

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <49B8810B.7030603@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:27:07 +0900
From:	Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
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

Hi Vivek,

Could you tell me to which kernel I can apply your patches?
   # latest mm?
I would like to test your controller.

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