[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49tyw9if3m.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:13:17 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cfq-iosched: fix corner cases in idling logic
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> writes:
> Does it make a big difference. cfq_close_cooperator() does not seem to be
> relying on coop flag. It will return us a queue if it thinks there is a
> close cooperator. (Irrespective of the fact whether cfqq->new_cfqq has bee
> setup yet or not). IIUC, cfqq->new_cfqq will be set in select_queue(). So
> in case select_queue() has not run yet, then cfqq->new_cfqq = NULL but we
> have a close cooperator.
>
> But I guess this condition will not hit many a times as select_queue()
> happens very frequently on NCQ hardware and the moment select queue finds
> close cooperator it will expire the current queue and above check will not
> even get a chance to turn.
>
> So IIUC, if we are here cfqq->new_cfqq is always NULL otherwise select_queue()
> by now must have expired us and we will not be here. So either we can
> completely remove the check or we can just continue with above check.
Wow, I need another cup of coffee for sure. You can just ignore me as I
completely misread the code being changed.
Sorry for the noise. I'll go make some coffee.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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