From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10) Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 19:51:41 +0200 Message-ID: <20091003175141.GH31616@kernel.dk> References: <20091003124049.GB12925@redhat.com> <20091003132115.GB31616@kernel.dk> <20091003135623.GD12925@redhat.com> <1254578553.7499.5.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003142840.GE31616@kernel.dk> <1254581496.8293.8.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003151445.GF31616@kernel.dk> <1254585420.7539.2.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003173532.GG31616@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Linus Torvalds Cc: dhaval-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, paolo.valente-rcYM44yAMweonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org, jmarchan-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, fernando-gVGce1chcLdL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org, Ulrich Lukas , jmoyer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Ingo Molnar , riel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, fchecconi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, Mike Galbraith , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, righi.andrea-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.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