Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932360AbWHDAPt (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:15:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932520AbWHDAPt (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:15:49 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.233]:61429 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932360AbWHDAPs (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:15:48 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DzSDukeD1XyGfLUhstU/guymkRc9zLZPNBXukJzpaKookXYBJp6/1m6TKXhegV4+PFq6kGTJVDOT4FJ+wWC6rMvDku8t2IrdjyIHedtA7fdR1VEKTLmKoQ0qTrs5GFRD0k6KXh7ZPsOzNgXSd0LgkG2XA/rrf8CrDhzf3EkT6fc= Message-ID: <5c49b0ed0608031715l7e8f9c7dyd647a11c44c73400@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 17:15:47 -0700 From: "Nate Diller" To: "Adrian Bunk" Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] [1/2] Remove Deadline I/O scheduler Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "Jens Axboe" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <20060803234648.GK25692@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5c49b0ed0608031557n405196ack3fa2024aae8a9475@mail.gmail.com> <20060803234648.GK25692@stusta.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1777 Lines: 41 On 8/3/06, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 03:57:32PM -0700, Nate Diller wrote: > > > This patch removes the Deadline I/O scheduler. Performance-wise, it > > should be superceeded by the Elevator I/O scheduler in the following > > patch. I would be very ineterested in hearing about any workloads or > > benchmarks where Deadline is a substantial improvement over Elevator, > > in throughput, fairness, latency, anything. > >... > > You are starting with the last step. You're right, I should have made myself clear. My goal is not to get deadline removed, but a discussion with Andrew some months ago showed he was averse to creating more options than we already have. So since I expect elevator can surpass deadline, I wanted to show that I think deadline is the one that it should replace. Certainly, CFQ and as can both beat elevator for a good number of workloads. > > First, get your Elevator I/O scheduler reviewed [1] and show some data > that backs your "it should be superceeded by the Elevator I/O scheduler" > claim. > > Then get your Elevator I/O scheduler included in Linus' tree. My first priority is to get that patch in order. > > Then you might perhaps schedule the Deadline I/O scheduler for removal. what are people's thoughts on this? since schedulers are modular, do we need a scheduled removal, or can this just sit in -mm for a while? if people are concerned about scripts which ask for 'deadline', we could add another exception (like the as->anticipatory one). NATE - 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/