Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 1 Oct 2000 17:42:27 -0300 (BRST) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: 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/
|  |