[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cfq-prio #2

Jens Axboe wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 11 2003, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>You acked the change actually :P
>>I guess it was done in mainline when AS was merged.
>Probably missed the semantic change of may_queue.

Anyway I won't bother digging up the email, its been done now.

>>>>Maybe my version should be called elv_force_queue?
>>>I just hate to see more of these, really. The original idea for
>>>may_queue was just that, may this process queue io or not. We can make
>>>it return something else, though, to indicate whether the process must
>>>be able to queue. Is it really needed?
>>Its quite important. If the queue is full, and AS is waiting for a process
>>to submit a request, its got a long wait.
>>Maybe a lower limit for per process nr_requests. Ie. you may queue if this
>>queue has less than 128 requests _or_ you have less than 8 requests
>>outstanding. This would solve my problem. It would also give you a much more
>>appropriate scaling for server workloads, I think. Still, thats quite a
>>change in behaviour (simple to code though).
>That basically belongs inside your may_queue for the io scheduler, imo.

You can force it to disallow the request, but you can't force it to allow
one (depending on a successful memory allocation, of course).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.048 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site