lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16
On Mon, Nov 26 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 08:42:34AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26 2001, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 2: The current elevator design is downright cruel to humans in
> > > the presence of heavy write traffic.
> >
> > max_bomb_segments logic was established to help absolutely _nothing_ a
> > long time ago.
> >
> > I agree that the current i/o scheduler has really bad interactive
> > performance -- at first sight your changes looks mostly like add-on
> > hacks though. Arjan's priority based scheme is more promising.
> >
>
> Based on pid priority or niceness?

None of the above yet. It isn't hard to add process I/O priority and
inherit that once the support is there in the i/o scheduler / block
layer, though.

--
Jens Axboe

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.063 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site