Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:52:12 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cfq-prio #2 |
| |
On Tue, Nov 11 2003, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>>>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). > >> > > > >Well that's back two mails then, make may_queue return whether you must > >queue, may queue, or can't queue. > > > > Yep, sounds good. I'll make a patch for it for 2.6.x > 0 sometime unless > you beat me to it.
I'll include it in the next cfq patch, then it can be submitted when the freeze unthaws a bit.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |