On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 09:24 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > After shutting down the computer yesterday, I was thinking a bit about > this issue and how to solve it without incurring too much delay. If we > add a stricter control of the depth, that may help. So instead of > allowing up to max_quantum (or larger) depths, only allow gradual build > up of that the farther we get away from a dispatch from the sync IO > queues. For example, when switching to an async or seeky sync queue, > initially allow just 1 in flight. For the next round, if there still > hasn't been sync activity, allow 2, then 4, etc. If we see sync IO queue > again, immediately drop to 1. > > It could tie in with (or partly replace) the overload feature. The key > to good latency and decent throughput is knowing when to allow queue > build up and when not to. Hm. Starting at 1 sounds a bit thin (like IDLE), multiple iterations to build/unleash any sizable IO, but that's just my gut talking. -Mike _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
