[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject[Question]: Tail latency problem in scheduler
According to article,
tail delay is problematic in enterprise service providers.
According to 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:0.032 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site