> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto: > > On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: >> That said, if you do always want maximum throughput, even at the >> expense of latency, then just switch off low-latency heuristics, i.e., >> set low_latency to 0. Depending on the device, setting slice_ilde to >> 0 may help a lot too (as well as with CFQ). If the throughput is >> still low also after forcing BFQ to an only-throughput mode, then you >> hit some bug, and I'll have a little more work to do ... > > Hello Paolo, > > Has it been considered to make applications tell the I/O scheduler > whether to optimize for latency or for throughput? It shouldn't be that > hard for window managers and shells to figure out whether or not a new > application that is being started is interactive or not. This would > require a mechanism that allows applications to provide such information > to the I/O scheduler. Wouldn't that be a better approach than the I/O > scheduler trying to guess whether or not an application is an interactive > application? > IMO that would be an (or maybe the) optimal solution, in terms of both throughput and latency. We have even developed a prototype doing what you propose, for Android. Unfortunately, I have not yet succeeded in getting support, to turn it into candidate production code, or to make a similar solution for lsb-compliant systems. Thanks, Paolo > Bart.
