Re: Time sliced CFQ io scheduler

[Nick Piggin]

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 08:11 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08 2004, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 07:55 +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:

> > > Currently I think the time sliced cfq is the best all around. There's
> > > still a few kinks to be shaken out, but generally I think the concept is
> > > sounder than AS.
> > > 
> > 
> > But aren't you basically unconditionally allowing a 4ms idle time after
> > reads? The complexity of AS (other than all the work we had to do to get
> > the block layer to cope with it), is getting it to turn off at (mostly)
> > the right times. Other than that, it is basically the deadline
> > scheduler.
> 
> Yes, the concept is similar and there will be time wasting currently.
> I've got some cases covered that AS doesn't, and there are definitely
> some the other way around as well.
> 

Oh? What have you got covered that AS doesn't? (I'm only reading the
patch itself, which isn't trivial to follow).

> If you have any test cases/programs, I'd like to see them.
> 

Hmm, damn. Lots of stuff. I guess some of the notable ones that I've
had trouble with are OraSim (Oracle might give you a copy), Andrew's
patch scripts when applying a stack of patches, pgbench... can't
really remember any others off the top of my head.

I've got a small set of basic test programs that are similar to the
sort of tests you've been running in this thread as well.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/