[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0911041318w68bd774qf110d1abd7f946e4@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 22:18:15 +0100
From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
taka@...inux.co.jp, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@...il.com,
m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] blkio: Change CFQ to use CFS like queue time stamps
Hi Vivek,
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> o Previously CFQ had one service tree where queues of all theree prio classes
> were being queued. One side affect of this time stamping approach is that
> now single tree approach might not work and we need to keep separate service
> trees for three prio classes.
>
Single service tree is no longer true in cfq for-2.6.33.
Now we have a matrix of service trees, with first dimension being the
priority class, and second dimension being the workload type
(synchronous idle, synchronous no-idle, async).
You can have a look at the series: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/26/482 .
It may have other interesting influences on your work, as the idle
introduced at the end of the synchronous no-idle tree, that provides
fairness also for seeky or high-think-time queues.
Corrado
--
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