[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c0942db0910020933l6d312c6ahae0e00619f598b39@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:33:44 -0700
From: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.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, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> In some cases I wish we had a server vs desktop switch, since it would
> decisions on this easier. I know you say that servers care about
> latency, but not at all to the extent that desktops do. Most desktop
> users would gladly give away the top of the performance for latency,
> that's not true of most server users. Depends on what the server does,
> of course.
If most of the I/O on a system exhibits seeky tendencies, couldn't the
schedulers notice that and use that as the hint for what to optimize?
I mean, there's no switch better than the actual I/O behavior itself.
--
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