[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100726143300.GG12449@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:33:00 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, nauman@...gle.com,
dpshah@...gle.com, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com, jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cfq-iosced: Implement IOPS mode and group_idle
tunable V3
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:07:07AM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> > To me this sounds like slice_idle=0 is the right default then, as it
> > gives useful behaviour for all systems linux runs on.
> No, it will give bad performance on single disks, possibly worse than
> deadline (deadline at least sorts the requests between different
> queues, while CFQ with slice_idle=0 doesn't even do this for readers).
Not sure if CFQ will be worse than deadline with slice_idle=0. CFQ has
some inbuilt things which should help.
- Readers preempt Writers
- All writers go in one single queue (at one prio level), readers get
their individual queues and can outnumber writers.
So I guess CFQ with slice_idle=0 should not be worse than deadline in terms
of read latencies.
Vivek
--
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