[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: [RFC] IO scheduler based IO controller V6
- From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>
- To: Balbir Singh <balbir linux vnet ibm com>
- Cc: dhaval linux vnet ibm com, snitzer redhat com, peterz infradead org, dm-devel redhat com, dpshah google com, jens axboe oracle com, agk redhat com, paolo valente unimore it, guijianfeng cn fujitsu com, fernando oss ntt co jp, mikew google com, jmoyer redhat com, nauman google com, m-ikeda ds jp nec com, lizf cn fujitsu com, fchecconi gmail com, akpm linux-foundation org, containers lists linux-foundation org, linux-kernel vger kernel org, s-uchida ap jp nec com, righi andrea gmail com, jbaron redhat com
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: [RFC] IO scheduler based IO controller V6
- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:41:14 -0400
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 09:26:21AM +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com> [2009-07-02 16:01:32]:
>
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Here is the V6 of the IO controller patches generated on top of 2.6.31-rc1.
> >
> > Previous versions of the patches was posted here.
> >
> > (V1) http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/3/11/486
> > (V2) http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/5/275
> > (V3) http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/26/472
> > (V4) http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/8/580
> > (V5) http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/19/279
> >
> > This patchset is still work in progress but I want to keep on getting the
> > snapshot of my tree out at regular intervals to get the feedback hence V6.
> >
>
> Hi, Vivek,
>
> I was able to compile and boot a 2.6.31-rc1 kernel with this patchset.
> I have a request could you fold up all patches and make one
> consolidated patch available somewhere (makes it easier to test), may
> be a git tree?
>
Thanks for trying it out balbir. Ok, for ease of patching and testing, I
will also maintain a consolidated patch. For V6 you can download the patch
from here.
http://people.redhat.com/~vgoyal/io-controller/io-scheduler-based-io-controller-v6.patch
> I did some quick tests with some io benchmarks and found in a simple
> scenario that the scheduler worked as expected, except that it took
> very long. I'll investigate further and revert back.
Thanks. I will wait for details.
Vivek
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]