[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090910.124547.71116284.ryov@valinux.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:45:47 +0900 (JST)
From: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>
To: vgoyal@...hat.com
Cc: riel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, agk@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
nauman@...gle.com, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
Hi Vivek,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> > In addition,
> > there are devices which doesn't use standard IO schedulers, and
> > dm-ioband can work on even such devices.
>
> This is a interesting use case. Few thoughts.
>
> - Can't io scheduling mechanism of these devices make use of elevator and
> elevator fair queuing interfaces to take advantage of io controlling
> mechanism. It should not be too difficult. Look at noop. It has
> just 131 lines of code and it now supports hierarchical io scheduling.
>
> This will come with request queue and its merging and plug/unplug
> mechanism. Is that an issue?
>
> - If not, then yes, for these corner cases, io scheduler based controller
> does not work as it is.
I have a extreme fast SSD and its device driver provides its own
make_request_fn(). So the device driver intercepts IO requests and the
subsequent processes are done within it.
Thanks,
Ryo Tsuruta
--
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