lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch,rfc] cfq: merge cooperating cfq_queues
    Date
    Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:

    > Hi
    > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:09 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
    >> I think it's wrong to call the userspace programs broken.  They worked
    >> fine when CFQ was quantum based, and they work well with noop and
    >> deadline.
    >
    > So they didn't work well with anticipatory, that was the default from
    > 2.6.0 to 2.6.17, and with CFQ with time slices, that was the default
    > from 2.6.18 up to now. I think enough time has passed to start fixing
    > those programs.

    I actually didn't test anticipatory, so I'm not sure about that one.

    > I think fixing nfsd at least for TCP should be easy. In TCP case, each
    > client has a private thread pool, so you can just share the I/O
    > context once, when creating those threads, and forget it.

    I don't think it's a thread pool per client. Where did you get that
    impression? Simply changing nfsd to use a single I/O context may be an
    approachable solution to the problem. I'm not sure if it's optimal, but
    it has to be better than what we have today.

    > For the UDP case, would just reducing idle window fix the problem? Or
    > the problem is not really the idling, but the bad I/O pattern?

    I think the two cases can be handled the same way. I'll look into it if
    time permits.

    Cheers,
    Jeff
    --
    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: 2009-10-26 16:09    [W:0.043 / U:58.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site