From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@alex.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.59-mm5
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:23:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030124112339.GN910@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <946253340.1043406208@[192.168.100.5]>
On Fri, Jan 24 2003, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel wrote:
>
> --On 23 January 2003 19:50 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> wrote:
>
> > So what anticipatory scheduling does is very simple: if an application
> > has performed a read, do *nothing at all* for a few milliseconds. Just
> > return to userspace (or to the filesystem) in the expectation that the
> > application or filesystem will quickly submit another read which is
> > closeby.
>
> I'm sure this is a really dumb question, as I've never played
> with this subsystem, in which case I apologize in advance.
>
> Why not follow (by default) the old system where you put the reads
> effectively at the back of the queue. Then rather than doing nothing
> for a few milliseconds, you carry on with doing the writes. However,
> promote the reads to the front of the queue when you have a "good
> lump" of them. If you get further reads while you are processing
> a lump of them, put them behind the lump. Switch back to the putting
> reads at the end when we have done "a few lumps worth" of
> reads, or exhausted the reads at the start of the queue (or
> perhaps are short of memory).
The whole point of anticipatory disk scheduling is that the one process
that submits a read is not going to do anything before that reads
completes. However, maybe it will issue a _new_ read right after the
first one completes. The anticipation being that the same process will
submit a close read immediately.
--
Jens Axboe
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel <linux-kernel@alex.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.59-mm5
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:23:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030124112339.GN910@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <946253340.1043406208@[192.168.100.5]>
On Fri, Jan 24 2003, Alex Bligh - linux-kernel wrote:
>
> --On 23 January 2003 19:50 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> wrote:
>
> > So what anticipatory scheduling does is very simple: if an application
> > has performed a read, do *nothing at all* for a few milliseconds. Just
> > return to userspace (or to the filesystem) in the expectation that the
> > application or filesystem will quickly submit another read which is
> > closeby.
>
> I'm sure this is a really dumb question, as I've never played
> with this subsystem, in which case I apologize in advance.
>
> Why not follow (by default) the old system where you put the reads
> effectively at the back of the queue. Then rather than doing nothing
> for a few milliseconds, you carry on with doing the writes. However,
> promote the reads to the front of the queue when you have a "good
> lump" of them. If you get further reads while you are processing
> a lump of them, put them behind the lump. Switch back to the putting
> reads at the end when we have done "a few lumps worth" of
> reads, or exhausted the reads at the start of the queue (or
> perhaps are short of memory).
The whole point of anticipatory disk scheduling is that the one process
that submits a read is not going to do anything before that reads
completes. However, maybe it will issue a _new_ read right after the
first one completes. The anticipation being that the same process will
submit a close read immediately.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-01-24 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-24 3:50 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 3:50 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 11:03 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
2003-01-24 11:03 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Alex Bligh - linux-kernel
2003-01-24 11:16 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 11:16 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 11:23 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Alex Tomas
2003-01-24 11:23 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Alex Tomas
2003-01-24 11:50 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 11:50 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 12:05 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Alex Tomas
2003-01-24 12:05 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Alex Tomas
2003-01-24 19:12 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 19:12 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 19:58 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Alex Tomas
2003-01-24 19:58 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Alex Tomas
2003-01-25 17:32 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Ed Tomlinson
2003-01-25 17:41 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-25 20:34 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Ed Tomlinson
2003-01-25 22:33 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-26 1:43 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Ed Tomlinson
2003-01-26 2:17 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-26 3:51 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Ed Tomlinson
2003-01-26 4:04 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-24 15:56 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Oliver Xymoron
2003-01-24 15:56 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Oliver Xymoron
2003-01-24 16:04 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Nick Piggin
2003-01-24 16:04 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Nick Piggin
2003-01-24 17:09 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Giuliano Pochini
2003-01-24 17:09 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Giuliano Pochini
2003-01-24 17:22 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Nick Piggin
2003-01-24 17:22 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Nick Piggin
2003-01-24 19:34 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-24 20:04 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Jens Axboe
2003-01-24 20:04 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Jens Axboe
2003-01-24 22:02 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-01-25 12:28 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Jens Axboe
2003-01-25 12:28 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Jens Axboe
2003-01-24 12:14 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Nikita Danilov
2003-01-24 12:14 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Nikita Danilov
2003-01-24 16:00 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Nick Piggin
2003-01-24 16:00 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Nick Piggin
2003-01-24 11:23 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2003-01-24 11:23 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Jens Axboe
2003-01-24 13:59 ` 2.5.59-mm5 got stuck during boot Helge Hafting
2003-01-24 13:59 ` Helge Hafting
2003-01-24 17:44 ` Ed Tomlinson
2003-01-24 17:56 ` Nick Piggin
2003-01-24 19:18 ` Ed Tomlinson
2003-01-24 16:17 ` 2.5.59-mm5 jlnance
2003-01-24 19:05 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
2003-01-25 8:33 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andres Salomon
2003-01-25 8:33 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andres Salomon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-01-24 16:59 2.5.59-mm5 Luck, Tony
2003-01-24 21:31 ` 2.5.59-mm5 Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030124112339.GN910@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@alex.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.