Re: I/O Scheduler Framework

["Simon 'corecode' Schubert" <corecode@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

First off, thanks for your work on this!

Alex Hornung wrote:
> As previously stated this might be a limited approach, but nonetheless
> it adds features without much overhead or complication.
> What I would like to hear is suggestions on what to do; do we want
> stackable (hierarchical) policies? if so, is the proposed approach good
> enough? if not, what other possibilities are there? what use cases are
> not covered by the suggested approach but are solved in other
> possibilites/approaches?

I think that we don't understand the whole matter yet.  Probably it is too 
early to come up with a definitive design, so I suggest only implementing 
the framework for one scheduler per disk and implementing schedulers for 
this framework.  After a while we might understand requirements and 
scheduler design better and then can reason about how a possible re-design 
for stackable/interacting schedulers might look like.

cheers
  simon

--
  <3 the future  +++  RENT this banner advert  +++   ASCII Ribbon   /"\
  rock the past  +++  space for low €€€ NOW!1  +++     Campaign     \ /
Party Enjoy Relax   |   http://dragonflybsd.org      Against  HTML   \
Dude 2c 2 the max   !   http://golden-apple.biz       Mail + News   / \