From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:35:32 -0400 Message-ID: <20090324183532.GG21389@redhat.com> References: <1236823015-4183-2-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20090312100054.GA8024@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090312140450.GE10919@redhat.com> <49C0A171.8060009@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090318215529.GA3338@redhat.com> <20090324125842.GA21389@redhat.com> <20090324182906.GF21389@redhat.com> <20090324184101.GO18554@gandalf.sssup.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090324184101.GO18554-f9ZlEuEWxVeACYmtYXMKmw@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Fabio Checconi Cc: oz-kernel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, paolo.valente-rcYM44yAMweonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org, Dhaval Giani , containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, menage-hpIqsD4AKlfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, jmoyer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, arozansk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, fernando-w0OK63jvRlAuJ+9fw/WgBHgSJqDPrsil@public.gmane.org, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:01PM +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote: > > From: Vivek Goyal > > Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2009 02:29:06PM -0400 > > > ... > > > Does keeping the sync queue in ready tree solves the problem too? Is > > > it because it avoid a virtual time jump? > > > > > > > I have not tried the second approch yet. But that also should solve the > > vtime jump issue. > > > > Do you mean that you intend to keep a queue with no backlog in the > active tree? Yes. Is it possible to keep a not-backlogged queue in the tree for later expiry. So that we don't actively wait/idle for next request to come and hope queue will become backlogged soon. Otherwise, it will be deleted from the active queue. This is just a thought, I am not even sure how would it interefere with bfq code. All this to solve the vtime jump issue for sync queues. Thanks Vivek