![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 08:11 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08 2004, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 07:55 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > Currently I think the time sliced cfq is the best all around. There's > > > still a few kinks to be shaken out, but generally I think the concept is > > > sounder than AS. > > > > > > > But aren't you basically unconditionally allowing a 4ms idle time after > > reads? The complexity of AS (other than all the work we had to do to get > > the block layer to cope with it), is getting it to turn off at (mostly) > > the right times. Other than that, it is basically the deadline > > scheduler. > > Yes, the concept is similar and there will be time wasting currently. > I've got some cases covered that AS doesn't, and there are definitely > some the other way around as well. > Oh? What have you got covered that AS doesn't? (I'm only reading the patch itself, which isn't trivial to follow). > If you have any test cases/programs, I'd like to see them. > Hmm, damn. Lots of stuff. I guess some of the notable ones that I've had trouble with are OraSim (Oracle might give you a copy), Andrew's patch scripts when applying a stack of patches, pgbench... can't really remember any others off the top of my head. I've got a small set of basic test programs that are similar to the sort of tests you've been running in this thread as well. - 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 14:08 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||