Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: Fix adverse effects of NFS client on interactive response | From | Trond Myklebust <> | Date | Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:40:53 -0500 |
| |
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 08:36 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > ...and if you stick in a faster server?... > > > > There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local > > filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other > > as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O > > should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE. > > Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"? Which > of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface > events? _That_ is the whole point of the interactivity bonus, and > precisely why Ingo introduced TASK_NONINTERACTIVE sleeps; so that > processes that are not being useful for interactivity could be moved > away from TASK_NONINTERRUPTABLE, with the end result that the X- > server could be run at priority 0 without harming interactivity, even > during heavy *disk*, *NFS*, and *network* activity. Admittedly, that > may not be what some people want, but they're welcome to turn off the > interactivity bonuses via some file in /proc (sorry, don't remember > which at the moment).
Then have io_schedule() automatically set that flag, and convert NFS to use io_schedule(), or something along those lines. I don't want a bunch of RT-specific flags littering the NFS/RPC code.
Cheers, Trond
- 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/
| |