[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1254162297.9820.54.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:24:57 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Ulrich Lukas <stellplatz-nr.13a@...enparkplatz.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@...hat.com,
dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
righi.andrea@...il.com, m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, agk@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
jmarchan@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 13:48 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Hmm.., so close to 25% reduction on average in completion time of konsole.
> But this is in presece of writer. Does this help even in presence of 1 or
> more sequential readers going?
Dunno, I've only tested sequential writer.
> So here latency seems to be coming from three sources.
>
> - Wait in CFQ before request is dispatched (only in case of competing seq readers).
> - seek latencies
> - latencies because of bigger requests are already dispatched to disk.
>
> So limiting the size of request will help with third factor but not with first
> two factors and here seek latencies seem to be the biggest contributor.
Yeah, seek latency seems to dominate.
-Mike
--
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