On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:21, Timothy Miller wrote:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > I'm guessing that the anticipatory scheduler is the culprit here. Soon
> > as I figure out the incantations to use the deadline scheduler, I'll
> > report back....
>
> It would be unfortunate if AS and the interactivity scheduler were to
> conflict. Is there a way we can have them talk to each other and have
> AS boost some I/O requests for tasks which are marked as interactive?
>
> It would sacrifice some throughput for the sake of interactivity, which
> is what the interactivity patches do anyhow. This is a reasonable
> compromise.
That's not as silly as it sounds. In fact it should be dead easy to
increase/decrease the amount of anticipatory time based on the bonus from
looking at the code. I dunno how the higher filesystem gods feel about this
though.
Con
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:40 EST