[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1254578553.7499.5.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:02:33 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO
controller V10)
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 09:56 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I have kept the overload delay period as "cfq_slice_sync" same as Mike had
> done. We shall have to experiment what is a good waiting perioed. Is 100ms
> too long if we are waiting for a request from same process which recently
> finished IO and we did not enable idle on it.
>
> I guess we can tweak the delay period as we move along.
I kept the delay period very short to minimize possible damage. Without
the idle thing, it wasn't enough, but with, worked a treat, as does your
patch.
-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