Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757614AbZJDSaM (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:30:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757106AbZJDSaL (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:30:11 -0400 Received: from mail-yx0-f199.google.com ([209.85.210.199]:60907 "EHLO mail-yx0-f199.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753006AbZJDSaK (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:30:10 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=l+5OQ3t/40ghO92b627axFoTEvAv4eJVYFYcD5t1u4rtG/b/AbujTE37pJeLfrlpY3 OBDjFSzomjxwpV1jzE1z2JQ2XjhkWYG40NusGIHwzaAibrJ5pZXeTdgizSO7q5+0J+8H zLWWP/5rR+71WrAZD3vEXHFINeMV5G6iyJ8r4= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091004173636.GC26573@kernel.dk> References: <200910041837.34546.czoccolo@gmail.com> <20091004173636.GC26573@kernel.dk> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 20:29:33 +0200 Message-ID: <4e5e476b0910041129o91268f0uc550640d62d82aab@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq: enable idle for seeky processes on rotational NCQ devices From: Corrado Zoccolo To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linux-Kernel , Jeff Moyer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1312 Lines: 34 On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > I think this one is a bit problematic. What I'd like seeky processes to > do is enable 'idle unless other sync read comes in' for such cases, > otherwise it will cost us a lot of performance on the seeky vs seeky > cases because we don't get to take advantage of queuing. Are we sure that queuing is beneficial in this workload, on non-raid rotational devices? If the seeks are still quite local (e.g. when accessing a single file), given that seek time is proportional to seek length, idling should provide higher throughput. Anyway, I'm working on an other patch that will group together all seeky queues and dispatch them without idling, and idle only on the last one, so if you prefer, this can be postponed until the other patch is ready. Thanks, Corrado > It would be > perfectly fine to continue waiting if just async IO comes in, but if we > have other seeky readers then they should get a turn. > > I realize that this does skew potential priority issues. > > -- > 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/