[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTil2A2y5f1jrMlAwN3r33TPsVBY3_NHTRlcbmX0F@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:54:53 -0700
From: Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...nel.dk,
nauman@...gle.com, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com,
czoccolo@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cfq-iosched: Implement a new tunable group_idle
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> @@ -3420,7 +3453,10 @@ static void cfq_completed_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> * the queue.
> */
> if (cfq_should_wait_busy(cfqd, cfqq)) {
> - cfqq->slice_end = jiffies + cfqd->cfq_slice_idle;
> + unsigned long extend_sl = cfqd->cfq_slice_idle;
> + if (!cfqd->cfq_slice_idle)
> + extend_sl = cfqd->cfq_group_idle;
> + cfqq->slice_end = jiffies + extend_sl;
> cfq_mark_cfqq_wait_busy(cfqq);
> cfq_log_cfqq(cfqd, cfqq, "will busy wait");
> }
Vivek, I haven't looked at this particular code snippet for some time.
Can you tell me why we add the slice_idle (or w/ your change
extend_sl) to slice_end instead of arming the idle timer with that
amount of time?
-Divyesh
--
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