[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0910031042560.6996@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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, 3 Oct 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Doesn't look too bad, all things considered. Apart from "stock" cfq,
> it's consistent. And being consistent is a Good Thing. Performance wise,
> it's losing out to "stock" but looks pretty competetive otherwise.
I agree. And I think the numbers for the kconsole test are pretty
conclusive. That's a big improvement (on top of the already very
impressive improvement).
> So far that looks like a winner. The dictator wanted good latency, he's
> getting good latency. I'll continue working on this on monday, while I'm
> waiting for delivery of the Trabant.
Trabant?
As in the car?
Why would you _ever_ wait for delivery? The sane option would be to try to
hide, or run away?
Linus
--
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