Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:03:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:03:11 -0500 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:34312 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:01:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 09:01:13 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrew Morton , "Nathan G. Grennan" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Unresponiveness of 2.4.16 Message-ID: <20011127090113.X5129@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <1006812135.1420.0.camel@cygnusx-1.okcforum.org> <3C02C06A.E1389092@zip.com.au> <20011127084234.V5129@suse.de> <20011126235853.A9391@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011126235853.A9391@mikef-linux.matchmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26 2001, Mike Fedyk wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 08:42:34AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 26 2001, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > 2: The current elevator design is downright cruel to humans in > > > the presence of heavy write traffic. > > > > max_bomb_segments logic was established to help absolutely _nothing_ a > > long time ago. > > > > I agree that the current i/o scheduler has really bad interactive > > performance -- at first sight your changes looks mostly like add-on > > hacks though. Arjan's priority based scheme is more promising. > > > > Based on pid priority or niceness? None of the above yet. It isn't hard to add process I/O priority and inherit that once the support is there in the i/o scheduler / block layer, though. -- 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/