[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
- From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>
- To: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo gmail com>
- Cc: dhaval linux vnet ibm com, peterz infradead org, dm-devel redhat com, dpshah google com, Jens Axboe <jens axboe oracle com>, agk redhat com, balbir linux vnet ibm com, paolo valente unimore it, jmarchan redhat com, fernando oss ntt co jp, Ulrich Lukas <stellplatz-nr 13a datenparkplatz de>, mikew google com, jmoyer redhat com, nauman google com, Ingo Molnar <mingo elte hu>, m-ikeda ds jp nec com, riel redhat com, lizf cn fujitsu com, fchecconi gmail com, containers lists linux-foundation org, Mike Galbraith <efault gmx de>, linux-kernel vger kernel org, akpm linux-foundation org, righi andrea gmail com, torvalds linux-foundation org
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10
- Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:31:17 -0400
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 05:27:55PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:55:25PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> >
> > Actually I am not touching this code. Looking at the V10, I have not
> > changed anything here in idling code.
>
> I based my analisys on the original patch:
> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0907.1/01793.html
>
Oh.., you are talking about fairness for seeky process patch. I thought
you are talking about current IO controller patches. Actually they both
have this notion of "fairness=1" parameter but do different things in
patches, hence the confusion.
Thanks
Vivek
> Mike, can you confirm which version of the fairness patch did you use
> in your tests?
>
> Corrado
>
> > Thanks
> > Vivek
> >
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]