are the io-schedulers per-device?

are the io-schedulers per-device?

[Florin Iucha]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 701 bytes --]

Hello,

For a semester project I am experimenting with a new IO scheduler and I
was trying to set my scheduler to control a single device, to ease the
development and debugging, by using
   echo "foo" > /sys/block/ubdc/queue/scheduler
Much to my suprise, this sets the scheduler for the other block
devices as well! Does this happen only to UML block devices? Do I need
to do anything to allow a per-device scheduler? Is the functionality
there, or is it in-progress? Am I reading too much in the fact that
the queue/scheduler is defined under each block device?

Thank you,
florin

PS: Please Cc: me as I am not subscribed.

-- 

Don't question authority: they don't know either!

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: are the io-schedulers per-device?

[Jens Axboe]

On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Florin Iucha wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> For a semester project I am experimenting with a new IO scheduler and I
> was trying to set my scheduler to control a single device, to ease the
> development and debugging, by using
>    echo "foo" > /sys/block/ubdc/queue/scheduler
> Much to my suprise, this sets the scheduler for the other block
> devices as well! Does this happen only to UML block devices? Do I need
> to do anything to allow a per-device scheduler? Is the functionality
> there, or is it in-progress? Am I reading too much in the fact that
> the queue/scheduler is defined under each block device?

It's per-queue. In general that is per-device, apparently that is not so
for UML since it shares a queue for several devices. From a cleanliness
and performance POV, it's is far better to have a queue per device
instead of sharing, I would suggest fixing the uml block device.

It looks pretty straight forward to do so, except for ubd_handler().
Which, btw, calls elv_next_request() without holding the queue lock!

-- 
Jens Axboe