[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <461A9A03.9070602@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:54:43 +0200
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>
To: Andreas Mohr <andi@...x01.fht-esslingen.de>
CC: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>
Subject: Re: Ten percent test
On 04/09/2007 03:27 PM, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> And I really don't see much difference whatsoever to the I/O scheduler
> area: some people want predictable latency, while others want maximum
> throughput or fastest operation for seek-less flash devices (noop).
> Hardware varies similarly greatly has well:
> Some people have huge disk arrays or NAS, others have a single flash disk.
> Some people have a decaying UP machine, others have huge SMP farms.
I do agree, and yes, I/O scheduling seems to not have suffered from the
choice although I must say I'm not sure how much use each I/O scheduler
individualy sees.
If one CPU scheduler can be good enough then it would better to just
have that one, but well, yes, maybe it can't. I certainly believe any
one scheduler can't avoid breaking down onder some condition. Demand is
just too varied.
I find it interesting that you see SD as a server scheduler and I guess
deterministic behaviour does point in that direction somewhat. I would
be enabling it on the desktop though, which probably is _some_ argument
on having multiple schedulers.
Rene.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists