Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752446AbZJZPBr (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:01:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751939AbZJZPBr (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:01:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35784 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751857AbZJZPBq (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:01:46 -0400 From: Jeff Moyer To: Jens Axboe Cc: Corrado Zoccolo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/4] cfq: implement merging and breaking up of cfq_queues References: <1256332492-24566-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> <4e5e476b0910241308s4a14fb69jbc6f8d35eb0ab78@mail.gmail.com> <20091026133422.GF10727@kernel.dk> X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:01:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20091026133422.GF10727@kernel.dk> (Jens Axboe's message of "Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:34:22 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1555 Lines: 41 Jens Axboe writes: > On Mon, Oct 26 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Corrado Zoccolo writes: >> >> > Hi Jeff, >> > this series looks good. >> >> Hi, Corrado. Thanks again for the review! >> >> > I like in particular the fact that you move seekiness detection in the cfqq. >> > This can help with processes that issue sequential reads and seeky >> > writes, or vice versa. >> > Probably, also the think time could be made per-cfqq, so that the >> > decision whether we should idle for a given cfqq is more precise. >> >> I'll have to think about that one. It would be good to know Jens' >> opinion on the matter, too. > > Your implementation looks fine, as usual I'm mostly worried about > performance impact and suitability (I hate having to work around > issues). But the win is so large in some cases that we should just go > ahead and merge it for .33, so I'll queue it up. Great, thanks for the review. In this case, however, I was wondering what your opinion was about moving the think time calculation to be per cfqq. ;-) > It would be nice to fix the in-kernel problem with NFS, since that is > doable. I'll see if I can get someone motivated to work on that. I'm not sure that I can devote much time to the issue myself, unfortunately. Cheers, Jeff -- 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/