On 8/3/06, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:57:32PM -0700, Nate Diller wrote:
> This patch removes the Deadline I/O scheduler. Performance-wise, it
> should be superceeded by the Elevator I/O scheduler in the following
> patch. I would be very ineterested in hearing about any workloads or
> benchmarks where Deadline is a substantial improvement over Elevator,
> in throughput, fairness, latency, anything.
>...
You are starting with the last step.
You're right, I should have made myself clear. My goal is not to get
deadline removed, but a discussion with Andrew some months ago showed
he was averse to creating more options than we already have. So since
I expect elevator can surpass deadline, I wanted to show that I think
deadline is the one that it should replace. Certainly, CFQ and as can
both beat elevator for a good number of workloads.
First, get your Elevator I/O scheduler reviewed [1] and show some data
that backs your "it should be superceeded by the Elevator I/O scheduler"
claim.
Then get your Elevator I/O scheduler included in Linus' tree.
My first priority is to get that patch in order.
Then you might perhaps schedule the Deadline I/O scheduler for removal.
what are people's thoughts on this? since schedulers are modular, do
we need a scheduled removal, or can this just sit in -mm for a while?
if people are concerned about scripts which ask for 'deadline', we
could add another exception (like the as->anticipatory one).
NATE
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
