From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RESEND v6 3/3] block: Adding ROW scheduling algorithm
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:25:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49d2suohxm.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1368354917-28687-1-git-send-email-tlinder@codeaurora.org> (Tanya Brokhman's message of "Sun, 12 May 2013 13:34:48 +0300")
Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org> writes:
> This patch adds the implementation of a new scheduling algorithm - ROW.
> The policy of this algorithm is to prioritize READ requests over WRITE
> as much as possible without starving the WRITE requests.
> The requests are kept in queues according to their priority. The dispatch
> is done in a Round Robin manner with a different slice for each queue.
> READ request queues get bigger dispatch quantum than the write requests.
You have just described CFQ.
Last time I asked for performance numbers[1], you mentioned that you had
published some, but provided no pointers to a paper or mailing list
posting, and I wasn't able to find anything via google, either.
It sounds as though you haven't even tried to adapt CFQ to your needs
(you mentioned trying to tune it, but not what tunings you tried or what
the results were). Continuing to position your new scheduler as the
only way forward without providing the data that led you to that
conclusion isn't very helpful. Note that I'm not suggesting that your
conclusion is wrong. Perhaps if you can provide a link to a research
paper, we can start there. For now, I can't see why we should take on
the maintenance of another I/O scheduler.
Cheers,
Jeff
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/7/164
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-13 18:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-12 10:34 [PATCH/RESEND v6 3/3] block: Adding ROW scheduling algorithm Tanya Brokhman
2013-05-13 18:25 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
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=x49d2suohxm.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tlinder@codeaurora.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).