From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Michael Frank <mhf@linuxmail.org>,
Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:05:43 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <402C30F7.9040407@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040213015757.GC25499@mail.shareable.org>
Jamie Lokier wrote:
>Helge Hafting wrote:
>
>>Something similiar could be done for io niceness. If we run out of
>>normal priority io, how about not issuing the low priority io
>>right away. Anticipate there will be more high-priority io
>>and wait for some idle time before letting low-priority
>>requests through. And of course some maximum wait to prevent
>>total starvation.
>>
>
>The problem is quite similar to scheduling for quality on a network
>device. Once a packet has started going it, usually you cannot abort
>the packet for a higher priority one.
>
>I thought there was a CBQ I/O scheduling patch or such to offer some
>kind of I/O niceness these days?
>
>
Yeah its Jens' CFQ io scheduler. It is in -mm, and I think it
has adjustable priorities now.
I have plans to do IO priorities in the anticipatory scheduler
(significantly differently to CFQ). One day...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-13 2:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-11 19:04 ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-11 20:28 ` Rik van Riel
2004-02-11 21:02 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-11 21:18 ` Diego Calleja
2004-02-12 2:00 ` Dave Olien
2004-02-12 2:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-12 9:42 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl Giuliano Pochini
2004-02-12 10:15 ` John Bradford
2004-02-12 10:27 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 17:05 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-12 17:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-02-12 20:55 ` Helge Hafting
2004-02-13 1:57 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-13 2:05 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-02-12 14:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-13 12:15 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 10:40 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 20:17 ` Hans Reiser
2004-02-12 9:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-12 20:20 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 8:28 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2004-02-16 17:51 ` Alex Zarochentsev
2004-02-16 20:03 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 12:35 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-14 15:00 ` Jon Burgess
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=402C30F7.9040407@cyberone.com.au \
--to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=helgehaf@aitel.hist.no \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhf@linuxmail.org \
--cc=pochini@shiny.it \
/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.