linux-kernel - Re: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory, deadline and noop

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 May 2008 09:46:28 +0200
From:	Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Matthew <jackdachef@...il.com>,
	Daniel J Blueman <daniel.blueman@...il.com>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory, deadline and noop

> From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
> Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 08:40:03AM +0200
>
...
> I think we can improve this further without getting too involved. If a
> 2nd request is seen in cfq_rq_enqueued(), then DO schedule a dispatch
> since this likely means that we wont be doing more merges on the first
> one.
> 

But isn't there the risk that even the second request would be
dispatched, while it still could have grown?

Moreover I am still unsure about how to handle (and if it's worth
handling) the case in which we restart queueing after an empty
dispatch round due to idling, as it would still have the same
problem.

(Also anticipatory doesn't handle this case too well.)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/