lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Do we support ioprio on SSDs with NCQ (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10)
On Mon, Oct 05 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Moreover, I suggest removing also the slice_resid part, since its
> >> semantics doesn't seem consistent.
> >> When computed, it is not the residency, but the remaining time slice.
> >
> > It stands for residual, not residency.  Make more sense?
> It makes sense when computed, but not when used in rb_key computation.
> Why should we postpone queues that where preempted, instead of giving
> them a boost?

We should not, if it is/was working correctly, it should allow both for
increase/descrease of tree position (hence it's a long and can go
negative) to account for both over and under time.

--
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: 2009-10-06 10:47    [W:0.066 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site