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  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:	Tue, 25 Jul 2006 06:59:21 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <>
To:	Al Boldi <>
CC:	Arjan van de Ven <>,,
Subject: Re: CFQ will be the new default IO scheduler - why?

Al Boldi wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>>> Should there be a default scheduler per filesystem?  As some
>>>> filesystems may perform better/worse with one over another?
>>> It's currently perDevice, and should probably be extended to perMount.
>> Hi,
> Hi!
>> per mount is going to be "not funny". I assume the situation you are
>> aiming for is the "3 partitions on a disk, each wants its own elevator".
>> The way the kernel currently works is that IO requests the filesystem
>> does are first flattened into an IO for the entire device (eg the
>> partition mapping is done) and THEN the IO scheduler gets involved to
>> schedule the IO on a per disk basis.
> IC.  That probably explains why concurrent io-procs have such a hard time 
> getting through to the disk.  They probably just hang in the flatting phase, 
> waiting for something to take care of their requests.
flattening is just an addition in the cpu, that's just really boring and shouldn't be visible anywhere
performance wise
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists