Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Nov 2003 01:43:13 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cfq-prio #2 |
| |
Jens Axboe wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 11 2003, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >>You acked the change actually :P >>I guess it was done in mainline when AS was merged. >> > >Probably missed the semantic change of may_queue. >
Anyway I won't bother digging up the email, its been done now.
> >>>>Maybe my version should be called elv_force_queue? >>>> >>>> >>>I just hate to see more of these, really. The original idea for >>>may_queue was just that, may this process queue io or not. We can make >>>it return something else, though, to indicate whether the process must >>>be able to queue. Is it really needed? >>> >>> >>Its quite important. If the queue is full, and AS is waiting for a process >>to submit a request, its got a long wait. >> >>Maybe a lower limit for per process nr_requests. Ie. you may queue if this >>queue has less than 128 requests _or_ you have less than 8 requests >>outstanding. This would solve my problem. It would also give you a much more >>appropriate scaling for server workloads, I think. Still, thats quite a >>change in behaviour (simple to code though). >> > >That basically belongs inside your may_queue for the io scheduler, imo. >
You can force it to disallow the request, but you can't force it to allow one (depending on a successful memory allocation, of course).
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |