On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 11:20:59AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> > > > some time for that to have an effect.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps the fact that the queue size knows nothing about the _size_ of the
> > > > requests in the queue is a problem.
> > >
> > > It's complicated, the size may not matter a lot. 128 sequential 512kb IO
> > > may complete faster than 128 random 4kb IO's.
> >
> > Yes, is there any way a queue could be limited to a certain amount of
> > 'completion time' ?
>
> Not easily, we'd need some sort of disk profile for that to be remotely
> reliable.
Perhaps we want to throw some sliding window algorithms at it. We can
bound requests and total I/O and if requests get retired too slowly we
can shrink the windows. Alternately, we can grow the window if we're
retiring things within our desired timeframe.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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]
