Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:41:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:41:38 -0500 Received: from [195.223.140.107] ([195.223.140.107]:42629 "EHLO athlon.random") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:41:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:48:02 +0100 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Jens Axboe Cc: Rik van Riel , Andrew Morton , Con Kolivas , linux kernel mailing list , marcelo@conectiva.com.br Subject: Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.{18,19{-ck9},20rc1{-aa1}} with contest Message-ID: <20021111154802.GF30193@dualathlon.random> References: <20021111015445.GB5343@x30.random> <20021111140920.GA838@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021111140920.GA838@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-GPG-Key: 1024D/68B9CB43 X-PGP-Key: 1024R/CB4660B9 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 861 Lines: 18 On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 03:09:20PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > latency view point. This is also why the 2.5 deadline io scheduler is > far superior in this area. going in function of time is even better of course, but just assuming bytes to be a linear function of time would be a good start, it depends if you want to backport the deadline I/O scheduler to 2.4 or not. I think going in terms of bytes would be simpler for 2.4. We're going to use 2.4 for at least one more year in some production environment, so I think it could make sense to address this, at least to be a function of bytes if not of time. Andrea - 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/