Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:31:58 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16 |
| |
Jens Axboe wrote: > > 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.
Good hacks, or bad ones?
It keeps things localised. It works. It's tunable. It's the best IO scheduler presently available.
> Arjan's priority based scheme is more promising.
If the IO priority becomes an attribute of the calling process then an approach like that has value. For writes, the priority should be driven by VM pressure and it's probably simpler just to stick the priority into struct buffer_head -> struct request. For reads, the priority could just be scooped out of *current.
If we're not going to push the IO priority all the way down from userspace then you may as well keep the logic inside the elevator and just say reads-go-here and writes-go-there.
But this has potential to turn into a great designfest. Are we going to leave 2.4 as-is? Please say no.
- - 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/
|  |