From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH block:for-3.3/core] cfq: merged request shouldn't jump to a different cfqq
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:04:06 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120106030406.GD6276@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1325819655.22361.513.camel@sli10-conroe>
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 11:14:15AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > So, yeah, the right fix would be using elv_former/latter_request()
> > instead. Maybe we should strip out rqhash altogether and change
> > elevator handle everything? I don't know. I'll prepare a different
> > fix patch soon.
>
> So not allow merge from two cfq queues strictly? This will impact
> performance. I don't know how important the strict isolation is. we even
> allow two cfq queues merge to improve performance.
That's how cfq has behaved before this recent plug merge breakage and
IIRC why the cooperating queue thing is there. If you want to change
the behavior, that should be an explicit separate patch.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-06 3:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20111221174733.9ba0861e762e8d96844b060b@canb.auug.org.au>
2011-12-21 23:15 ` linux-next: Tree for Dec 21 Andrew Morton
2011-12-22 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-22 23:20 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-22 23:24 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-22 23:38 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-22 23:44 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-22 23:46 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-23 0:42 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-24 5:13 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-12-25 1:02 ` [PATCH block/for-3.3/core] block: an exiting task should be allowed to create io_context Tejun Heo
2011-12-25 13:29 ` Jens Axboe
2011-12-27 22:07 ` Andrew Morton
2011-12-28 8:33 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-12-28 16:48 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-28 17:50 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-12-28 17:55 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-28 21:19 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-03 17:35 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-03 17:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-03 20:09 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-03 20:20 ` Jens Axboe
2012-01-03 22:13 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-03 22:35 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 1:24 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-05 18:36 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-01-05 18:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 2:17 ` [PATCH block:for-3.3/core] cfq: merged request shouldn't jump to a different cfqq Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 2:36 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 3:14 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-06 3:04 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-01-06 3:30 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 3:52 ` [PATCH block:for-3.3/core] block: disable ELEVATOR_INSERT_SORT_MERGE Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 4:19 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-06 4:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 8:15 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-06 15:34 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 3:34 ` [PATCH block:for-3.3/core] cfq: merged request shouldn't jump to a different cfqq Shaohua Li
2012-01-06 3:22 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 4:15 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-06 4:40 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-06 2:47 ` Shaohua Li
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=20120106030406.GD6276@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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).