On Monday 23 April 2007 00:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Monday 23 April 2007 00:22, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > X is still somewhat jerky, even
> > at nice -19. I'm sure it happens when it's waiting in the other array. We
> > should definitely manage to get rid of this if we want to ensure low
> > latency.
>
> Yeah that would be correct. It's clearly possible to keep the whole design
> philosophy and priority system intact with SD and do away with the arrays
> if it becomes a continuous stream instead of two arrays but that requires
> some architectural changes. I've been concentrating on nailing all the
> remaining issues (and they kept cropping up as you've seen *blush*).
> However... I haven't quite figured out how to do that architectural change
> just yet either so let's just iron out all the bugs out of this now.
By the way, Ingo et al, this is yet again an open invitation to suggest ideas,
or better yet, provide code to do this with now that the core of SD is
finally looking to be doing everything as expected within its constraints.
I'm low on cycles and would appreciate the help. I'd prefer to leave
everything that's queued in -mm as is for the moment before someone wants to
take this into another wild direction.
Thanks!
--
-ck
-
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]
