Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 08:36 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote:
...and if you stick in a faster server?...
There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local
filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other
as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O
should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.
Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"? Which
of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface
events? _That_ is the whole point of the interactivity bonus, and
precisely why Ingo introduced TASK_NONINTERACTIVE sleeps; so that
processes that are not being useful for interactivity could be moved
away from TASK_NONINTERRUPTABLE, with the end result that the X-
server could be run at priority 0 without harming interactivity, even
during heavy *disk*, *NFS*, and *network* activity. Admittedly, that
may not be what some people want, but they're welcome to turn off the
interactivity bonuses via some file in /proc (sorry, don't remember
which at the moment).
Then have io_schedule() automatically set that flag, and convert NFS to
use io_schedule(), or something along those lines. I don't want a bunch
of RT-specific flags littering the NFS/RPC code.
This flag isn't RT-specific. It's used in the scheduling SCHED_NORMAL
tasks and has no other semantic effects.
Peter
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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]
