On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 11:40 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 05:32:00PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 17:27 +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:55:25PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > > > > > > > > Actually I am not touching this code. Looking at the V10, I have not > > > > changed anything here in idling code. > > > > > > I based my analisys on the original patch: > > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0907.1/01793.html > > > > > > Mike, can you confirm which version of the fairness patch did you use > > > in your tests? > > > > That would be this one-liner. > > > > Ok. Thanks. Sorry, I got confused and thought that you are using "io > controller patches" with fairness=1. > > In that case, Corrado's suggestion of refining it further and disabling idling > for seeky process only on non-rotational media (SSD and hardware RAID), makes > sense to me. One thing that might help with that is to have new tasks start out life meeting the seeky criteria. If there's anything going on, they will be. -Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
