On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 09:21:30AM -0500, Shailabh Nagar wrote: > +The I/O controller consists of > +- a new I/O scheduler called ps-iosched which is an incremental update > +to the cfq ioscheduler. It has enough differences with cfq to warrant a > +separate I/O scheduler. > +- ckrm-io : the controller which interfaces ps-iosched with CKRM's core
I do not like the entangling of the specific scheduler (ps) data into the ckrm io controller since that will prevent the reuse of that module and lead to duplicate code and confused administrators. As I am writing a io scheduler based on cello (I am mostly learning and making sense of it all), I would like to use the same ckrm controller. To that end, what would be needed is the ckrm io controller to hold bald pointers to scheduler specific structures, much like the elevator and the request have private data members that can then hold the queues, semaphores and other fields. What do you think? florin PS: Could you please rediff the patches against 2.6.11+? Thank you. -- Don't question authority: they don't know either!
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
