[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[dm-devel] Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10)
- From: Mike Galbraith <efault gmx de>
- To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat 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, linux-kernel vger kernel org, akpm linux-foundation org, righi andrea gmail com, Linus Torvalds <torvalds linux-foundation org>
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10)
- Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:02:33 +0200
On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 09:56 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> I have kept the overload delay period as "cfq_slice_sync" same as Mike had
> done. We shall have to experiment what is a good waiting perioed. Is 100ms
> too long if we are waiting for a request from same process which recently
> finished IO and we did not enable idle on it.
>
> I guess we can tweak the delay period as we move along.
I kept the delay period very short to minimize possible damage. Without
the idle thing, it wasn't enough, but with, worked a treat, as does your
patch.
-Mike
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]