[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: Linus Torvalds <torvalds linux-foundation org>
- To: Jens Axboe <jens axboe oracle com>
- Cc: dhaval linux vnet ibm com, peterz infradead org, dm-devel redhat com, dpshah google 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>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com>, 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
- Subject: [dm-devel] Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10)
- Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> Doesn't look too bad, all things considered. Apart from "stock" cfq,
> it's consistent. And being consistent is a Good Thing. Performance wise,
> it's losing out to "stock" but looks pretty competetive otherwise.
I agree. And I think the numbers for the kconsole test are pretty
conclusive. That's a big improvement (on top of the already very
impressive improvement).
> So far that looks like a winner. The dictator wanted good latency, he's
> getting good latency. I'll continue working on this on monday, while I'm
> waiting for delivery of the Trabant.
Trabant?
As in the car?
Why would you _ever_ wait for delivery? The sane option would be to try to
hide, or run away?
Linus
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]