[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
- From: Ryo Tsuruta <ryov valinux co jp>
- To: vgoyal redhat com
- Cc: riel redhat com, guijianfeng cn fujitsu com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, jmoyer redhat com, dm-devel redhat com, jens axboe oracle com, nauman google com, akpm linux-foundation org, agk redhat com, balbir linux vnet ibm com
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: Regarding dm-ioband tests
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:45:47 +0900 (JST)
Hi Vivek,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat 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
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]