linux-kernel - cfq-iosched.c:Use cfqq->nr_sectors in charge the vdisktime

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <201103302323256090890@foxmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:23:30 +0800
From:	"Lina Lu" <lulina_nuaa@...mail.com>
To:	"Vivek Goyal" <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux kernel mailing list" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: cfq-iosched.c:Use cfqq->nr_sectors in charge the vdisktime

Hi Vivek,
      I find the weight policy can be more accuracy with cfqq->nr_sectors instead
of cfqq->slice_dispatch. 
      Today, I try to modify cfq_group_served(), and use "charge = cfqq->nr_sectors; "
instead of "charge = cfqq->slice_dispatch; " . The test result seens more accuracy.
Why you choose slice_dispatch here? Is the nr_sectors will lower the total performance?
      And in iops mod, if I try to apply weight policy on two IO processes with different 
avgrq-sz, the test results will not exact match the weight value.

Thanks
Lina

--
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/