[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[dm-devel] Re: [RFC] IO scheduler based IO controller V6



* Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com> [2009-07-08 09:41:14]:

> 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
>

Thanks, this will definitely help me get more testing done!
 
> > 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.
>

I'll try and send something out by Friday, but for now I am not even
very sure if it is a real problem. I ran iozone on two groups with 500
and 1000 as weights on the same parition and set fairness to 1 in
sysfs for the partition. I used a record size of 4 (default) and tried
to run it on a file size of 1G.

BTW, I don't see anything about weights being multiple of an expected
figure documented anywhere. I tried weights of 1024 (similar to the
scheduler and got shouted back at :) ). Does the documentation patch
specify the expected range for weights? 

-- 
	Balbir


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]