Re: [RESEND][RFC] BFQ I/O Scheduler

[Aaron Carroll]

Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > From: Aaron Carroll <aaronc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > How do you figure that?  This is a situation where time-slices work nicely,
> > because they implicitly account for the performance penalty of poor access
> > patterns.  The sequential-accessing processes (and the system overall) ends
> > up with higher throughput.
>
> The unfairness is not WRT tasks generating poor access patterns.
> If you have two tasks doing sequential accesses on two different
> regions of the disk the exact amount of service they receive in the
> same amount of time depends on the transfer rate of the disk on
> that regions, and, depending on the media, it is not always the same.

Ok... you're talking about ZBR.

I'm not convinced this should be treated differently to, say, random vs.
sequential workloads.  You still end up with reduced global throughput as
you've shown in the ``Short-term time guarantees'' table.  It is an
interesting case though... since the lower performance is not though fault
of the process it doesn't seem fair to ``punish'' it.

-- Aaron

--
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/