[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091003142840.GE31616@kernel.dk>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 16:28:40 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.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, Oct 03 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 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.
Can you test the current line up of patches in for-linus? It has the
ramp up I talked about included as well.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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