linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler

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

Message-ID: <20120115223246.GC3174@redhat.com>
Date:	Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:32:46 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk, jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3]block: An IOPS based ioscheduler

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 09:26:45AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:

[..]
> >  Could you for example compare a latency of reads while running heavy
> > background writing between CFQ and your scheduler? Loads like this where
> > original motivation for CFQ I believe.
> CFQ supports preemption, FIOPS doesn't, so I suppose read latency of CFQ
> is still better in such workload.
> In this initial post, I just want to demonstrate the basic idea of the
> ioscheduler. I'll post more data for both latency and throughput in next
> round.

I think before numbers what will be more helpful to know is that what are
you trying to achieve and why existing CFQ code can not do that with little
modification.

Thanks
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/