On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:55:35PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
Hi Vivek,
Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 07:38:08PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
Hi,
Munehiro Ikeda m-ik...@ds.jp.nec.com
Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 05:37:28PM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
We are starting from a point where there is no cgroup based IO
scheduling in the kernel. And it is probably not reasonable to satisfy
all IO scheduling related requirements in one patch set. We
Hi Vivek,
Me, Divyesh, Fernando and Yoshikawa had a chance to have a chat with
Jens about IO controller during Linux Plumbers Conference '09. Jens
expressed his concerns about the size and complexity of the patches. I
believe that is a reasonable concern. We talked about things that
could be done
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Vivek Goyalvgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 04:00:04PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
Hi,
Hi Rik,
Thanks for reviewing the patches. I wanted to have better understanding
of
where all does it help to associate a bio to the group of
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Vivek Goyalvgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:34:54PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
o blkio_cgroup patches from Ryo to track async bios.
o This functionality is used to determine the group of async IO from page
instead of
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Vivek Goyalvgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:55:31PM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Gui
Jianfengguijianf...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
o Currently a request queue has got fixed number of request
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Gui
Jianfengguijianf...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
o Currently a request queue has got fixed number of request descriptors for
sync and async requests. Once the request descriptors are consumed, new
processes are put to sleep and they
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Vivek Goyalvgo...@redhat.com wrote:
o Currently one can dispatch requests from multiple queues to the disk. This
is true for hardware which supports queuing. So if a disk support queue
depth of 31 it is possible that 20 requests are dispatched from queue 1
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Vivek Goyalvgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 01:27:47PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
Hi Vivek,
There's no need to travel the iocg-group_data for each iog
when exiting a elevator, that costs too much. An alternative
solution is reseting iocg_id as
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Fabio Checconi fchecc...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com
Date: Fri, May 29, 2009 12:06:10PM -0400
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:41:27PM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
...
I have some concerns about the new preemption logic.
Actually we need
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 06:27:40PM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
Hi Vivek,
+#ifdef CONFIG_TRACK_ASYNC_CONTEXT
+ if (elv_bio_sync(bio)) {
+ /* sync io. Determine cgroup from submitting task context. */
+
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 01:53:59PM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
[..]
+/**
+ * __bfq_lookup_next_entity - return the first eligible entity in @st.
+ * @st: the service tree.
+ *
+ * Update the virtual time in @st
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 05:45:32PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
Hi Vivek,
This patch adds io group reference handling when allocating
and removing a request.
Hi Gui,
Thanks for the patch. We were thinking that requests
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:41:01AM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 05:45:32PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
Hi Vivek,
This patch
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:24:41PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2009 15:58:27 -0400
Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi All,
Here is the V2 of the IO controller patches generated on top of
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Gui Jianfeng
guijianf...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 05:33:10PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
Hi All,
Here is another posting for IO controller patches. Last time I had posted
RFC patches for an IO
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:37:53PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
I think it would be possible to implement both proportional and limiting
rules at the same level
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Andrea Righi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:37:53PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
I think it would be possible to implement both proportional and limiting
rules at the same level
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Gui Jianfeng
guijianf...@cn.fujitsu.com wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
Hi All,
Here is another posting for IO controller patches. Last time I had posted
RFC patches for an IO controller which did bio control per cgroup.
Hi Vivek,
I got the following OOPS when
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Andrea Righi righi.and...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2009-03-12 19:01, Vivek Goyal wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:11:46AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:56:46 -0400 Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
[snip]
Also.. there are so many IO
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Balbir Singh bal...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
* Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com [2009-03-11 21:56:46]:
o Documentation for io-controller.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com
---
Documentation/block/io-controller.txt | 221
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:32:41PM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
[..]
DESC
io-controller: idle for sometime on sync queue before expiring it
EDESC
o When a sync queue expires, in many cases it might be empty
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:01PM +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote:
From: Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com
Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2009 02:29:06PM -0400
...
Does keeping the sync queue in ready tree solves the problem too? Is
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:23:29PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
Vivek Goyal wrote:
Hi Vivek,
I would be interested in knowing if these are the results expected?
Hi Dhaval,
Good question. Keeping current
32-bit binaries on 64-bit
kernel (i.e compatibility mode). It is working with internal
checkpointing, but results in a seg fault in user mode after restore
for external checkpoint. I will post the patches as soon as I nail it
down.
Oren.
Nauman Rafique wrote:
Actually looking at the code
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Dave Hansen d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 16:17 -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
The patch sent by Masahiko assumes that all the user-space registers
are saved on
the kernel stack on a system call. This is not true for the majority
for causing
confusion.
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Nauman Rafique nau...@google.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Dave Hansen d...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 16:17 -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
The patch sent by Masahiko assumes that all the user-space registers
The patch sent by Masahiko assumes that all the user-space registers are saved
on
the kernel stack on a system call. This is not true for the majority
of the system calls. The callee saved registers (as defined by x86_64
ABI) - rbx, rbp, r12, r13, r14, r15 - are saved only in some special
cases.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:06 AM, Paolo Valente [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fabio and I are a little bit worried about the fact that the problem
of working in the time domain instead of the service domain is not
being properly dealt with. Probably we did not express ourselves very
clearly, so we
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:33:59AM +0900, Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
Hi Vivek,
Ryo, do you still want to stick to two level scheduling? Given the
problem
of it breaking down underlying scheduler's assumptions, probably
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:16:41AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19 2008, Divyesh Shah wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:24 AM, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Nauman Rafique wrote
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:54:14AM -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:40 AM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 09:16:41AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19 2008, Divyesh
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Li Zefan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nauman Rafique wrote:
If we start with bfq patches, this is how plan would look like:
1 Start with BFQ take 2.
2 Do the following to support proportional division:
a) Expose the per device weight interface to user, instead
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:05 AM, Fabio Checconi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
From: Nauman Rafique [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, Nov 17, 2008 09:01:48PM -0800
If we start with bfq patches, this is how plan would look like:
1 Start with BFQ take 2.
2 Do the following to support proportional
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Fabio Checconi wrote:
From: Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, Nov 18, 2008 09:07:51AM -0500
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 01:05:08PM +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote:
...
I have to think a little
, Nauman Rafique wrote:
In an attempt to make sure that this discussion leads to
something useful, we have summarized the points raised in this
discussion and have come up with a strategy for future.
The goal of this is to find common ground between all the approaches
proposed on this mailing list
In an attempt to make sure that this discussion leads to
something useful, we have summarized the points raised in this
discussion and have come up with a strategy for future.
The goal of this is to find common ground between all the approaches
proposed on this mailing list.
1 Start with
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Fabio Checconi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2008 01:08:21PM -0500
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:20:13PM -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
...
I was thinking of a more cfq-like solution for proportional division
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:55:53AM -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:36:20PM -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:36:20PM -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:07:57PM -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
It seems that approaches
It seems that approaches with two level scheduling (DM-IOBand or this
patch set on top and another scheduler at elevator) will have the
possibility of undesirable interactions (see issues listed at the
end of the second patch). For example, a request submitted as RT might
get delayed at higher
On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Vivek Goyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:07:57PM -0800, Nauman Rafique wrote:
It seems that approaches with two level scheduling (DM-IOBand or this
patch set on top and another scheduler at elevator) will have the
possibility
42 matches
Mail list logo
