From: Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Ext3 latency fixes Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 13:56:20 -0700 Message-ID: <20090404135620.79d8cb3e@infradead.org> References: <1238742067-30814-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20090404135719.GA9812@mit.edu> <20090404151649.GE5178@kernel.dk> <20090404173412.GF5178@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Theodore Tso , Linux Kernel Developers List , Ext4 Developers List To: Jens Axboe Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:59336 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752622AbZDDUy4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:54:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090404173412.GF5178@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 19:34:12 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: > > Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. > > It's really not that simple, otherwise the schedulers would be much > simpler. It's pretty easy to get good latency if you disregard any > throughput concerns, I'd be very interested in a scheduler like that..... How much work would it be to make it ? (if nothing else it would be a good number to have "should be within 50% of the perfect one for the tradeoff") -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org