[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121211142742.GE7084@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:27:42 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Zhao Shuai <zhaoshuai@...ebsd.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: performance drop after using blkcg
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:25:18AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> In general, do not use blkcg on faster storage. In current form it
> is at best suitable for single rotational SATA/SAS disk. I have not
> been able to figure out how to provide fairness without group idling.
I think cfq is just the wrong approach for faster non-rotational
devices. We should be allocating iops instead of time slices.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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