Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10)

[Jens Axboe <jens.axboe-QHcLZuEGTsvQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Sat, Oct 03 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > Doesn't look too bad, all things considered. Apart from "stock" cfq,
> > it's consistent. And being consistent is a Good Thing. Performance wise,
> > it's losing out to "stock" but looks pretty competetive otherwise.
> 
> I agree. And I think the numbers for the kconsole test are pretty 
> conclusive. That's a big improvement (on top of the already very 
> impressive improvement).

Yes very much so. The tweaks are mostly straight forward, so my
confidence in the end results from a "will this work" stand point is
good. It will likely be somewhat slower for some things, but we can fix
those up as we continue testing.

I wont ask you to pull this yet, but I likely will next week when I've
done some benchmarks with it for the other end of the spectrum.

> > So far that looks like a winner. The dictator wanted good latency, he's
> > getting good latency. I'll continue working on this on monday, while I'm
> > waiting for delivery of the Trabant.
> 
> Trabant?
> 
> As in the car? 
> 
> Why would you _ever_ wait for delivery? The sane option would be to try to 
> hide, or run away?

OK, so I'm not really waiting for a Trabant. I do have a car on order,
but not a 2-stroke :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe