Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752815AbZI1SZM (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:25:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752300AbZI1SZL (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:25:11 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:56969 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752267AbZI1SZK (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:25:10 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18KqiA3UvYKgv46z3IsypTOqnJ8MtHzI5rjAXuwh7 10ewfD+/5roc5G Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 From: Mike Galbraith To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Jens Axboe , Ulrich Lukas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, agk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, jmarchan@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, riel@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20090928174809.GB3643@redhat.com> References: <1253820332-10246-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <4ABC28DE.7050809@datenparkplatz.de> <20090925202636.GC15007@redhat.com> <1253976676.7005.40.camel@marge.simson.net> <1254034500.7933.6.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090927164235.GA23126@kernel.dk> <1254075359.7354.66.camel@marge.simson.net> <1254110648.7683.3.camel@marge.simson.net> <20090928174809.GB3643@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:24:57 +0200 Message-Id: <1254162297.9820.54.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.65 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 977 Lines: 26 On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 13:48 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > Hmm.., so close to 25% reduction on average in completion time of konsole. > But this is in presece of writer. Does this help even in presence of 1 or > more sequential readers going? Dunno, I've only tested sequential writer. > So here latency seems to be coming from three sources. > > - Wait in CFQ before request is dispatched (only in case of competing seq readers). > - seek latencies > - latencies because of bigger requests are already dispatched to disk. > > So limiting the size of request will help with third factor but not with first > two factors and here seek latencies seem to be the biggest contributor. Yeah, seek latency seems to dominate. -Mike -- 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/