Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:23:09 -0300 (BRT) | From | Marcelo Tosatti <> | Subject | Re: RFC on io-stalls patch |
| |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 11:01:16AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > No I don't have anything specific, it just seems like a bad heuristic to > > > get rid of. I can try and do some testing tomorrow. I do feel strongly > > > > well, it's not an heuristic, it's a simplification and it will certainly > > won't provide any benefit (besides saving some hundred kbytes of ram per > > harddisk that is a minor benefit). > > You are missing my point - I don't care about loosing the extra request > list, I never said anything about that in this thread. I care about > loosing the reserved requests for reads. And we can do that just fine > with just holding back a handful of requests. > > > > that we should at least make sure to reserve a few requests for reads > > > exclusively, even if you don't agree with the oversized check. Anything > > > else really contradicts all the io testing we have done the past years > > > that shows how important it is to get a read in ASAP. And doing that in > > > > Important for latency or throughput? Do you know which is the benchmarks > > that returned better results with the two queues, what's the theory > > behind this? > > Forget the two queues, noone has said anything about that. The reserved > reads are important for latency reasons, not throughput.
So Jens,
Please bench (as you said you would), and send us the results.
Its very important.
Thanks - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |