Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932242AbZJCOCn (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:02:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932180AbZJCOCm (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:02:42 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:50068 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932179AbZJCOCm (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:02:42 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18nBfRDM2InocDXs80jsHMphWn8EtqWnrJOf3NPAn jiwTSq1RuzTIW+ Subject: Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10) From: Mike Galbraith To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Jens Axboe , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , 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, riel@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20091003135623.GD12925@redhat.com> References: <20091002172554.GJ31616@kernel.dk> <20091002172842.GA4884@elte.hu> <20091002173732.GK31616@kernel.dk> <1254507215.8667.7.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091002181903.GN31616@kernel.dk> <1254548931.8299.18.camel@marge.simson.net> <1254549378.8299.21.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003112915.GA12925@redhat.com> <20091003124049.GB12925@redhat.com> <20091003132115.GB31616@kernel.dk> <20091003135623.GD12925@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:02:33 +0200 Message-Id: <1254578553.7499.5.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: 0.71 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 801 Lines: 20 On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 09:56 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > I have kept the overload delay period as "cfq_slice_sync" same as Mike had > done. We shall have to experiment what is a good waiting perioed. Is 100ms > too long if we are waiting for a request from same process which recently > finished IO and we did not enable idle on it. > > I guess we can tweak the delay period as we move along. I kept the delay period very short to minimize possible damage. Without the idle thing, it wasn't enough, but with, worked a treat, as does your patch. -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/