On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:01PM +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote: > > From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2009 02:29:06PM -0400 > > > ... > > > Does keeping the sync queue in ready tree solves the problem too? Is > > > it because it avoid a virtual time jump? > > > > > > > I have not tried the second approch yet. But that also should solve the > > vtime jump issue. > > > > Do you mean that you intend to keep a queue with no backlog in the > active tree? Yes. Is it possible to keep a not-backlogged queue in the tree for later expiry. So that we don't actively wait/idle for next request to come and hope queue will become backlogged soon. Otherwise, it will be deleted from the active queue. This is just a thought, I am not even sure how would it interefere with bfq code. All this to solve the vtime jump issue for sync queues. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
