On Sat, Oct 03 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote: > 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. > > Well, it hasn't hit git.kernel.org yet, it's at... > > * block-for-linus 1d22351 cfq-iosched: add a knob for desktop interactiveness It's the top three patches here, kernel.org sync sometimes takes a while... http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-2.6-block.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/for-linus -- Jens Axboe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
