Hi, Fernando, > > - Implement a block layer resource controller. dm-ioband is a working > > solution and feature rich but its dependency on the dm infrastructure is > > likely to find opposition (the dm layer does not handle barriers > > properly and the maximum size of I/O requests can be limited in some > > cases). In such a case, we could either try to build a standalone > > resource controller based on dm-ioband (which would probably hook into > > generic_make_request) or try to come up with something new. > > I doubt about the maximum size of I/O requests problem. You can't avoid > this problem as far as you use device mapper modules with such a bad > manner, even if the controller is implemented as a stand-alone controller. > There is no limitation if you only use dm-ioband without any other device > mapper modules.
Ryo told me this isn't true anymore. The dm infrastructure introduced a new feature to support multiple page-sized I/O requests, that was just merged to the current linux tree. So you and me don't need to worry about this stuff anymore. Ryo said he was going to make dm-ioband support this new feature and post the patches soon. > And I think the device mapper team just started designing barriers support. > I guess it won't take long. Right, Alasdair? > We should know it is logically impossible to support barriers on some > types of device mapper modules such as LVM. You can't avoid the barrier > problem when you use this kind of multiple devices even if you implement > the controller in the block layer. > > But I think a stand-alone implementation will have a merit that it > makes it easier to setup the configuration rather than dm-ioband. > From this point of view, it would be good that you move the algorithm > of dm-ioband into the block layer. > On the other hand, we should know it will make it impossible to use > the dm infrastructure from the controller, though it isn't so rich. > > > - If the I/O tracking patches make it into the kernel we could move on > > and try to get the Cgroup extensions to CFQ and AS mentioned before (see > > (1), (2), and (3) above for details) merged. > > - Delegate the task of controlling the rate at which a task can > > generate dirty pages to the memory controller. > > > > This RFC is somewhat vague but my feeling is that we build some > > consensus on the goals and basic design aspects before delving into > > implementation details. > > > > I would appreciate your comments and feedback. > > > > - Fernando Thanks, Hirokazu Takahashi. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
