From: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Helge Hafting <helgehaf@aitel.hist.no>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Michael Frank <mhf@linuxmail.org>,
Giuliano Pochini <pochini@shiny.it>,
Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 13:05:43 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <402C30F7.9040407@cyberone.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040213015757.GC25499@mail.shareable.org>
Jamie Lokier wrote:
>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?
>
>
Yeah its Jens' CFQ io scheduler. It is in -mm, and I think it
has adjustable priorities now.
I have plans to do IO priorities in the anticipatory scheduler
(significantly differently to CFQ). One day...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-13 2:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-11 19:04 ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-11 20:28 ` Rik van Riel
2004-02-11 21:02 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-11 21:18 ` Diego Calleja
2004-02-12 2:00 ` Dave Olien
2004-02-12 2:23 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-12 9:42 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interl Giuliano Pochini
2004-02-12 10:15 ` John Bradford
2004-02-12 10:27 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-12 17:05 ` Michael Frank
2004-02-12 17:18 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2004-02-12 20:55 ` Helge Hafting
2004-02-13 1:57 ` Jamie Lokier
2004-02-13 2:05 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-02-12 14:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-02-13 12:15 ` ext2/3 performance regression in 2.6 vs 2.4 for small interleaved writes Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 10:40 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-12 20:17 ` Hans Reiser
2004-02-12 9:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-12 20:20 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 8:28 ` Juan Piernas Canovas
2004-02-16 17:51 ` Alex Zarochentsev
2004-02-16 20:03 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-13 12:35 ` Jon Burgess
2004-02-14 15:00 ` Jon Burgess
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=402C30F7.9040407@cyberone.com.au \
--to=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=helgehaf@aitel.hist.no \
--cc=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhf@linuxmail.org \
--cc=pochini@shiny.it \
/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