From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:23:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:23:31 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:48558 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:23:31 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 09:33:15 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Ed Tomlinson Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] CFQ scheduler, #2 Message-ID: <20030215083315.GE26738@suse.de> References: <3DF453C8.18B24E66@digeo.com> <200212092059.06287.tomlins@cam.org> <3DF54BD7.726993D@digeo.com> <200302141638.44843.tomlins@cam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302141638.44843.tomlins@cam.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 14 2003, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > The version posted the other day did fair queueing of requests between > > processes, but it did not help to provide fair request allocation. This > > version does that too, results are rather remarkable. In addition, the > > following changes were made: > > The numbers from the second message are nice - especially considering this > is only the second iteration... > > A question about io priorities. I wonder if they could not be implemented > via a per pid cfq_quantum? If I am not missunderstanding things, a bigger > value here for a given process should mean that it gets a larger share of > the io bandwidth... That's exactly right, and yes that would be one way of doing it. -- Jens Axboe