Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754954AbZKCWA1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:00:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754178AbZKCWA0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:00:26 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30579 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753885AbZKCWA0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:00:26 -0500 From: Jeff Moyer To: Jens Axboe Cc: Corrado Zoccolo , Linux-Kernel Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 0/5] cfq-iosched: improve latency for no-idle queues (v3) References: <4e5e476b0910271124r2cf9f9c0l83fdc59b50619202@mail.gmail.com> <4e5e476b0911030042q5963718aj5875c542e6f6cc40@mail.gmail.com> <4e5e476b0911030719m425c208cg311f44a91fad8342@mail.gmail.com> <4e5e476b0911031035l7caffcb7n36b6eddd399864e7@mail.gmail.com> <20091103201802.GL8742@kernel.dk> <20091103202836.GM8742@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: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:00:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091103202836.GM8742@kernel.dk> (Jens Axboe's message of "Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:28:36 +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: 1293 Lines: 30 Jens Axboe writes: > On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote: >> Jens Axboe writes: >> >> > Since for-linus contains conflicting changes, can you and Jeff please >> > double check that everything is still in order? The interesting bit here >> > is the merge with for-2.6.33 and the coop limit from Shaohua Li. I did >> > the straight forward merge, but we likely just need to drop that logic >> > since the coop concept is radically different given that we merge and >> > break queues in for-2.6.33. >> >> Yeah, since I changed the meaning of the cfqq_coop flag, a lot of those >> tests are just plain wrong. Let me play with it and I'll send you an >> incremental patch in a bit. > > Thanks, here's what I have. It's basically a revert of the commit in > question. Your patch looks like a straight-forward revert. I still think we need some guards in place, though. For now, I think we can go with what you have, and I'll come up with some other mechanism to deal with this case. 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/