lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
Subject[Question]: Tail latency problem in scheduler
According to https://research.google.com/pubs/pub40801.html article,
tail delay is problematic in enterprise service providers.
According to https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2670988 article, FIFO
scheduling works best and LIFO is worst for tail latency.
As we test Linux scheduler called CFS, behaves mostly LIFO. Small
changes to CFS makes it FIFO style and tail delay reduces to 50%.
I want to argue about CFS strategy. It seems no body cares about tail
latency at kernel level.
How enterprise service providers overcome tail latency problem?
Is it possible to at least have a flag that changes scheduler strategy
for I/O intensive multi threaded applications?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-03 17:15    [W:0.025 / U:10.092 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site