Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:41:20 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |