linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][RFC] BFQ I/O Scheduler

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]

Message-ID: <48072549.7040104@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Date:	Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:24:09 +1000
From:	Aaron Carroll <aaronc@....unsw.edu.au>
To:	Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...more.it>
CC:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC] BFQ I/O Scheduler

Paolo Valente wrote:
> In my opinion, the time-slice approach of cfq is definitely better 
> suited than the (sector) budget approach for this type of workloads. On 
> the opposite end, the price of time-slices is unfairness towards, e.g., 
> threads doing sequential accesses. In bfq we were mainly thinking about 

How do you figure that?  This is a situation where time-slices work nicely,
because they implicitly account for the performance penalty of poor access
patterns.  The sequential-accessing processes (and the system overall) ends
up with higher throughput.
 
 -- Aaron

--
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/