lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Disk priorities...
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, LA Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever
> > > been any thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?.
> >
> > Not currently, but it would be trivial to adjust the maximum
> > elevator sorting latency according to the niceness of the
> > process. I have no idea how much this would help, though ...
>
> What process? By the time when bh hits the ll_rw_block()
> originating process may be dead.

Indeed, for write throttling we have to find another
solution. One thing we could do is set different
trottle targets for different processes.

(so process A is trottled at 10% dirty pages while
process B is trottled at 40% dirty pages ... with
priorities being recalculated once every second or
so to preserve fairness)

> And if you mean reads... Good luck propagating the originator
> information.

Isn't it the case that for most of the filesystem
reads the current process is the one that is the
originator of the request ?

regards,

Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.087 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site