Hi Jens,
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 03 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > unsigned int cfq_desktop;
>> > + unsigned int cfq_desktop_dispatch;
>>
>> > - if (cfq_cfqq_idle_window(cfqq) && cfqd->rq_in_driver[BLK_RW_ASYNC])
>> > + if (cfq_cfqq_idle_window(cfqq) && cfqd->rq_in_driver[BLK_RW_ASYNC]) {
>> > + cfqd->desktop_dispatch_ts = jiffies;
>> > return 0;
>> > + }
>>
>> btw., i hope all those desktop_ things will be named latency_ pretty
>> soon as the consensus seems to be - the word 'desktop' feels so wrong in
>> this context.
>>
>> 'desktop' is a form of use of computers and the implication of good
>> latencies goes far beyond that category of systems.
>
> I will rename it, for now it doesn't matter (lets not get bogged down in
> bike shed colors, please).
>
> Oh and Mike, I forgot to mention this in the previous email - no more
> tunables, please. We'll keep this under a single knob.
Did you have a look at my http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/47750/ ?
It already introduces a 'target_latency' tunable, expressed in ms.
If we can quantify the benefits of each technique, we could enable
them based on the target latency requested by that single tunable.
Corrado
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
__________________________________________________________________________
dott. Corrado Zoccolo mailto:czoccolo@xxxxxxxxx
PhD - Department of Computer Science - University of Pisa, Italy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
