On Tue 11-06-19 15:34:48, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 6/2/19 12:04 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > On 5/30/19 3:45 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> > [...] > >> At any rate, since you pointed out that you are interested in > >> out-of-the-box performance, let me complete the context: in case > >> low_latency is left set, one gets, in return for this 12% loss, > >> a) at least 1000% higher responsiveness, e.g., 1000% lower start-up > >> times of applications under load [1]; > >> b) 500-1000% higher throughput in multi-client server workloads, as I > >> already pointed out [2]. > >> > > > > I'm very happy that you could solve the problem without having to > > compromise on any of the performance characteristics/features of BFQ! > > > > > >> I'm going to prepare complete patches. In addition, if ok for you, > >> I'll report these results on the bug you created. Then I guess we can > >> close it. > >> > > > > Sounds great! > > > > Hi Paolo, > > Hope you are doing great! > > I was wondering if you got a chance to post these patches to LKML for > review and inclusion... (No hurry, of course!) > > Also, since your fixes address the performance issues in BFQ, do you > have any thoughts on whether they can be adapted to CFQ as well, to > benefit the older stable kernels that still support CFQ? Since CFQ doesn't exist in current upstream kernel anymore, I seriously doubt you'll be able to get any performance improvements for it in the stable kernels... Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
