[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: performance "regression" in cfq compared to anticipatory, deadline and noop
> From: Jens Axboe <>
> Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 08:40:03AM +0200
> I think we can improve this further without getting too involved. If a
> 2nd request is seen in cfq_rq_enqueued(), then DO schedule a dispatch
> since this likely means that we wont be doing more merges on the first
> one.

But isn't there the risk that even the second request would be
dispatched, while it still could have grown?

Moreover I am still unsure about how to handle (and if it's worth
handling) the case in which we restart queueing after an empty
dispatch round due to idling, as it would still have the same

(Also anticipatory doesn't handle this case too well.)

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-16 09:43    [W:0.047 / U:7.252 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site