Re: [PATCH 02/20] blkio: Change CFQ to use CFS like queue timestamps
From: Vivek Goyal
Date: Wed Nov 04 2009 - 18:22:45 EST
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 10:18:15PM +0100, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > o Previously CFQ had one service tree where queues of all theree prio classes
> > were being queued. One side affect of this time stamping approach is that
> > now single tree approach might not work and we need to keep separate service
> > trees for three prio classes.
> Single service tree is no longer true in cfq for-2.6.33.
> Now we have a matrix of service trees, with first dimension being the
> priority class, and second dimension being the workload type
> (synchronous idle, synchronous no-idle, async).
> You can have a look at the series: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/10/26/482 .
> It may have other interesting influences on your work, as the idle
> introduced at the end of the synchronous no-idle tree, that provides
> fairness also for seeky or high-think-time queues.
Had one more question. Now with dynamic slice length (reduce slice length
to meet target latency), don't wee see reduced throughput on rotational
media with sequential workload?
I saw some you posted numbers for SSD. Do you have some numbers for
rotational media also?
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/