On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 16:28 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Sat, Oct 03 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 09:56 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > > > I have kept the overload delay period as "cfq_slice_sync" same as Mike had > > > done. We shall have to experiment what is a good waiting perioed. Is 100ms > > > too long if we are waiting for a request from same process which recently > > > finished IO and we did not enable idle on it. > > > > > > I guess we can tweak the delay period as we move along. > > > > I kept the delay period very short to minimize possible damage. Without > > the idle thing, it wasn't enough, but with, worked a treat, as does your > > patch. > > Can you test the current line up of patches in for-linus? It has the > ramp up I talked about included as well. Sure. I'll go find it. -Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
