Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759383AbZCXS4f (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:56:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753921AbZCXS4L (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:56:11 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:36645 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753318AbZCXS4K (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:56:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:35:32 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Fabio Checconi Cc: Nauman Rafique , Gui Jianfeng , Dhaval Giani , dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, jens.axboe@oracle.com, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@intellilink.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp, arozansk@redhat.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, oz-kernel@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, menage@google.com, peterz@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] Documentation Message-ID: <20090324183532.GG21389@redhat.com> References: <1236823015-4183-2-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <20090312100054.GA8024@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090312140450.GE10919@redhat.com> <49C0A171.8060009@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090318215529.GA3338@redhat.com> <20090324125842.GA21389@redhat.com> <20090324182906.GF21389@redhat.com> <20090324184101.GO18554@gandalf.sssup.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090324184101.GO18554@gandalf.sssup.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1123 Lines: 31 On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:01PM +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote: > > From: Vivek Goyal > > Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2009 02:29:06PM -0400 > > > ... > > > Does keeping the sync queue in ready tree solves the problem too? Is > > > it because it avoid a virtual time jump? > > > > > > > I have not tried the second approch yet. But that also should solve the > > vtime jump issue. > > > > Do you mean that you intend to keep a queue with no backlog in the > active tree? Yes. Is it possible to keep a not-backlogged queue in the tree for later expiry. So that we don't actively wait/idle for next request to come and hope queue will become backlogged soon. Otherwise, it will be deleted from the active queue. This is just a thought, I am not even sure how would it interefere with bfq code. All this to solve the vtime jump issue for sync queues. Thanks Vivek -- 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/