lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    DateFri, 01 Aug 2003 11:00:04 +0200
    From"Ihar \"Philips\" Filipau" <>
    SubjectRe: [SHED][IO-SHED] Are we missing the big picture?
       Am I right - judging from your posting - that we finally reached 
    moment than Linux will have network-like queueing disciplines for disks 
    and CPUs?
    
       In any way, CPU/disk throughput just another types of limited resource.
       It would be nice to be able to manage it - who gets more, who gets 
    less. CPU/disk schedulers by manageability are far behind network.
       IMHO must have for servers.
    
    Ian Kumlien wrote:
    > Hi all,> > I have been following the sheduler and interactivity discussions closely
    > but via the marc.theaimsgroup.com archive, So i might be behind etc...
    > =P> > [Note: sorry if i sound like mr.know-it-all etc, just trying to get a
    > point across]> > Anyways, i think that the AS discussions that i have seen has missed
    > some points. Getting the processes priority in AS is one thing, but fist
    > of all i think there should be a stand off layer. Let me explain:
    > > I liked Jens Axobe's 'CBQ' alike implementation (based on the idea of
    > Andrea A. (afair i have the names right) since it does the most
    > important thing... which is *nothing* when there is no load (ie, pass
    > trough).> > AS might be/is the best damn io sheduler for loaded machines but when
    > there is no load, it's overhead. So in my opinion there should be
    > something that first warrants the usage of AS before it's actually
    > engaged.> > And, if it's only engaged during high load, additions like basing the
    > requests priority on the process/tasks priority would make total sense,
    > adding the 'wakeup on wait' or what it was would also make total
    > sense... But how many of your machines uses the disk 100% of the time?
    > (in the real world... )> > I don't know how 'CBQ' was implemented but any 'we are under load now'
    > trigger would do it for me.> > Please see to it that my CC is included in any discussions =)
    > > PS. Or was it a version of SFQ? in that case s/CBQ/SFQ/g
    > DS.> 
    
    
    -
    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/
    
    
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 12:47    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2008