[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: stochastic fair queueing in the elevator [Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.20-ck3 / aa / rmap with contest]
    On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
    > >The only way to get the minimal possible latency and maximal fariness is
    > >my new stochastic fair queueing idea.
    > Sounds nice. I would like to see per process disk distribution.

    Sounds like the easiest way to get that fair, indeed. Manage
    every disk as a separately scheduled resource...

    > However dependant reads can not merge with each other obviously so
    > you could end up say submitting 4K reads per process.

    Considering that one medium/far disk seek counts for about 400 kB
    of data read/write, I suspect we'll just want to merge requests or
    put adjacant requests next to each other into the elevator up to
    a fairly large size. Probably about 1 MB for a hard disk or a cdrom,
    but much less for floppies, opticals, etc...

    > But your solution also does nothing for sequential IO throughput in
    > the presence of more than one submitter.

    > I think you should be giving each process a timeslice,

    That is the anticipatory scheduler. A good complement to the SFQ
    part of the IO scheduler. I'd really like to see both ideas together
    in one scheduler, they sound like a winning pair.

    > For reads, anticipatory scheduling can be very helpful in theory
    > however it remains to be seen if I can make it work without adding
    > too much complexity. Your fair queueing should go nicely on top
    > if I can make it work. I do like your idea though!

    The anticipatory scheduler can just remain "on" while the priority
    difference of the requests of the current process aren't too big
    when compared to the priority of the other requests. Once the SFQ
    part of the scheduler sends down requests with a really big priority
    difference the anticipatory scheduler can "skip a beat" and switch
    to another process.

    Note that Andrea's distinction between synchronous and asynchronous
    requests may be more appropriate than the distinction between read
    and write requests ...

    The only remaining question is how do we know which requests are
    synchronous and which are asynchronous ? Ie. which requests have
    a process waiting on their completion and which requests don't have
    a process waiting on their completion ?


    Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
    Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:""></a>
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.023 / U:19.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site