lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: cfq misbehaving on 2.6.11-1.14_FC3
--- Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
> THe problem here is that cfq (and the other io schedulers) still
> consider the io async even if fsync() ends up waiting for it to
> complete. So there's no real QOS being applied to these pending writes,
> and I don't immediately see how we can improve that situation right now.
<I might sound stupid>
I still don't understand why async requests are in a different queue than the
sync ones?
Wouldn't it be simpler to consider all the IO the same, and like you pointed
out, consider synced IO to be equivalent to async + some sync (as in wait for
completion) call (fsync goes a little too far).
</I might sound stupid>

>
> What file system are you using? I ran your test on ext2, and it didn't
> give me more than ~2 seconds latency for the fsync. Tried reiserfs now,
> and it's in the 23-24 range.
>
I am using ext3 on Fedora Core 3.


-
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: 2005-06-22 20:07    [W:0.027 / U:1.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site