Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response

[Horst von Brand]

Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > ...and if you stick in a faster server?...
> > There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local
> > filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other
> > as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O
> > should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.

> Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"?  Which
> of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface  events?

And if it is a user waiting for the data to display? Can't distinguish that
so easily from the compiler waiting for something to do...
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513
-
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/