Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable

From: Daniel Phillips (phillips@bonn-fries.net)
Date: Mon Jan 21 2002 - 10:38:59 EST

Next message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering."
Previous message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering."
Next in thread: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable"
Reply: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On January 15, 2002 01:39 pm, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> My reservation about preemption as an implementation technique is that
> it has costs, which seem to be not easily boundable, but not very
> clear benefits.

To me the benefit is clear enough: ASAP scheduling of IO threads, a simple
heuristic that improves both throughput and latency.

--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering."
Previous message: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering."
Next in thread: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable"
Reply: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com: "Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 23 2002 - 21:00:45 EST