Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:33:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:32:59 -0500 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:24594 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:32:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 15:23:16 -0200 (BRST) From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Andrew Morton Cc: Alan Cox , lkml Subject: Re: [patch] get_request starvation fix In-Reply-To: <3C69A196.B7325DC2@zip.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > Second version of this patch, incorporating Suparna's > suggested simplification (the low-water mark was > unnecessary). > > This patch is working well here. Hopefully it'll pop up > in an rmap kernel soon. > > Bill Irwin has been doing some fairly extensive tuning > and testing of this. Hopefully he'll come out with some > numbers soon. > > I include the original description... It seems the real gain (in latency) is caused by the FIFO behaviour. That is, removing this hunk (against __get_request_wait()) - if (q->rq[rw].count < batch_requests) + if (q->rq[rw].count == 0) schedule(); Would not make _much_ difference latency-wise. I'm I right or missing something ? Anyway, I would like to have the patch cleaned up for 2.4.19-pre (remove the instrumentation stuff _and_ make it clear on the documentation that READA requests are not being used in practice). Thanks a lot for that, Andrew. - 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/