Re: [PATCH] cfq-prio #2

[Jens Axboe]

On Tue, Nov 11 2003, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>>>Its quite important. If the queue is full, and AS is waiting for a 
> >>>>process
> >>>>to submit a request, its got a long wait.
> >>>>
> >>>>Maybe a lower limit for per process nr_requests. Ie. you may queue if 
> >>>>this
> >>>>queue has less than 128 requests _or_ you have less than 8 requests
> >>>>outstanding. This would solve my problem. It would also give you a much 
> >>>>more
> >>>>appropriate scaling for server workloads, I think. Still, thats quite a
> >>>>change in behaviour (simple to code though).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>That basically belongs inside your may_queue for the io scheduler, imo.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You can force it to disallow the request, but you can't force it to allow
> >>one (depending on a successful memory allocation, of course).
> >>
> >
> >Well that's back two mails then, make may_queue return whether you must
> >queue, may queue, or can't queue.
> >
> 
> Yep, sounds good. I'll make a patch for it for 2.6.x > 0 sometime unless
> you beat me to it.

I'll include it in the next cfq patch, then it can be submitted when the
freeze unthaws a bit.

-- 
Jens Axboe

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