From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266330AbUBMB7b (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:59:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266646AbUBMB7b (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:59:31 -0500 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:18306 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266330AbUBMB7a (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Feb 2004 20:59:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:57:57 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Helge Hafting Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Michael Frank , Nick Piggin , Giuliano Pochini , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl Message-ID: <20040213015757.GC25499@mail.shareable.org> References: <402B5502.2010207@cyberone.com.au> <200402130105.22554.mhf@linuxmail.org> <200402121718.i1CHITFf018390@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20040212205503.GA13934@hh.idb.hist.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040212205503.GA13934@hh.idb.hist.no> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Helge Hafting wrote: > Something similiar could be done for io niceness. If we run out of > normal priority io, how about not issuing the low priority io > right away. Anticipate there will be more high-priority io > and wait for some idle time before letting low-priority > requests through. And of course some maximum wait to prevent > total starvation. The problem is quite similar to scheduling for quality on a network device. Once a packet has started going it, usually you cannot abort the packet for a higher priority one. I thought there was a CBQ I/O scheduling patch or such to offer some kind of I/O niceness these days? -- Jamie