[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CFQ will be the new default IO scheduler - why?
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > Should there be a default scheduler per filesystem? As some
> > > filesystems may perform better/worse with one over another?
> >
> > It's currently perDevice, and should probably be extended to perMount.
> Hi,


> per mount is going to be "not funny". I assume the situation you are
> aiming for is the "3 partitions on a disk, each wants its own elevator".
> The way the kernel currently works is that IO requests the filesystem
> does are first flattened into an IO for the entire device (eg the
> partition mapping is done) and THEN the IO scheduler gets involved to
> schedule the IO on a per disk basis.

IC. That probably explains why concurrent io-procs have such a hard time
getting through to the disk. They probably just hang in the flatting phase,
waiting for something to take care of their requests.

> The 2.4 kernel did this the other way around, and it was really a bad
> idea (no fairness, less optimal scheduling all around due to less
> visibility into what the disk is really doing, several hardware
> properties such as TCQ depth that affect scheduling IOs are truely per
> disk not per partition etc etc)
> So I don't think it's likely that per mount is really an option right
> now..

Probably true as it stands right now, but extending io-sched semantics to be
filesystem aware in the "flattening/partition mapping" phase could improve
performance a lot.



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: 2006-07-25 06:59    [W:0.075 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site