On Tue, Feb 11 2003, Jason Lunz wrote:
> axboe@suse.de said:
> >> By all means, do the same thing with disk i/o. It's been a smashing
> >> success with packet queueing.
> >
> > Well, that's the point.
>
> Yes, what you've done with cbq is great. What I was referring to,
> though, is the user configurability of network frame queueing. It's
> possible to do really complex things for very specialized needs, yet
> also easy to put in a simple tweak if there's just one type of traffic
> you need to prioritize. It'd be nice to have that kind of
> configurability for unusual i/o loads, and the arbitrary queue stacking
> is a whole different beast than having a couple of tunables to tweak.
That is indeed the goal. We'll see how much is doable within the 2.6
time frame, though.
-- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:35 EST