[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E736229.4080300@tao.ma>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:50:17 +0800
From: Tao Ma <tm@....ma>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
Maxim Patlasov <maxim.patlasov@...il.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch]cfq-iosched: delete deep seeky queue idle logic
On 09/16/2011 10:08 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 05:54:51PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
>> This year's FAST has a paper named "A Scheduling Framework That Makes
>> Any Disk Schedulers Non-Work-Conserving Solely Based on Request
>> Characteristics". It has described this situation and suggests a new
>> scheduler named "stream scheduler" to resolve this. But I am not sure
>> whether CFQ can work like that or not.
>
> As usual I suspect the best thing is to just use noop for these kinds of
> cases. E.g. when you use xfs with the filestreams options you'll get
> patterns pretty similar to that in the initial post - that is
> intentional as it is generally use to place them into different areas
> of a complex RAID array. Any scheduler "smarts" will just help to break these
> I/O streams.
yeah, actually the paper does show that the performance of cfq is worse
than noop in this case. ;) See section 3.4 if you are interested.
Thanks
Tao
--
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