[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090324183532.GG21389@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:35:32 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Fabio Checconi <fchecconi@...il.com>
Cc: Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>,
Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, dpshah@...gle.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com, mikew@...gle.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, ryov@...inux.co.jp,
fernando@...ellilink.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
taka@...inux.co.jp, arozansk@...hat.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
oz-kernel@...hat.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
menage@...gle.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:01PM +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
> > Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2009 02:29:06PM -0400
> >
> ...
> > > Does keeping the sync queue in ready tree solves the problem too? Is
> > > it because it avoid a virtual time jump?
> > >
> >
> > I have not tried the second approch yet. But that also should solve the
> > vtime jump issue.
> >
>
> Do you mean that you intend to keep a queue with no backlog in the
> active tree?
Yes. Is it possible to keep a not-backlogged queue in the tree for later
expiry. So that we don't actively wait/idle for next request to come and
hope queue will become backlogged soon. Otherwise, it will be deleted from
the active queue. This is just a thought, I am not even sure how would it
interefere with bfq code.
All this to solve the vtime jump issue for sync queues.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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