lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Regarding dm-ioband tests
    Hi,

    > From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
    > Date: Tue, Sep 08, 2009 03:24:08PM -0400
    >
    > Ryo Tsuruta wrote:
    > >Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
    >
    > >>Are you saying that dm-ioband is purposely unfair,
    > >>until a certain load level is reached?
    > >
    > >Not unfair, dm-ioband(weight policy) is intentionally designed to
    > >use bandwidth efficiently, weight policy tries to give spare bandwidth
    > >of inactive groups to active groups.
    >
    > This sounds good, except that the lack of anticipation
    > means that a group with just one task doing reads will
    > be considered "inactive" in-between reads.
    >

    anticipation helps in achieving fairness, but CFQ currently disables
    idling for nonrot+NCQ media, to avoid the resulting throughput loss on
    some SSDs. Are we really sure that we want to introduce anticipation
    everywhere, not only to improve throughput on rotational media, but to
    achieve fairness too?


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-09-09 02:09    [W:4.962 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site