On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:27:50AM -0600, David Young wrote: > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:36:16PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote: > > The root cause of such a problem is, we don't do I/O scheduling at all. > > > > I think that pool(9) (and pool_cache(9)) is a great tool to manage > > limited resources. The way to go would be to extend it to manage > > bandwidth in I/O subsystems. (We already use pool_cache(9) for > > KVA.) > > > > Resources are shared, and have dependencies. I/O resources would > > look like some hierachical structure chained with pool backend > > callbacks. Probably combined with device tree too. > > FWIW, I'm working on managing PCI I/O resources in this way, but I'm > probably going to use vmem(9), not pool(9).
That is PCI I/O *space*, right? I agree vmem(9) is suitable for that. What I meant is I/O descriptors like mbuf or struct buf. Something like altq generalized for I/O queues. > > Dave > > -- > David Young OJC Technologies > dyo...@ojctech.com Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933 -- Masao Uebayashi / Tombi Inc. / Tel: +81-90-9141-4635
