On 6/2/19 12:04 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 5/30/19 3:45 AM, Paolo Valente wrote: >> [...] >> At any rate, since you pointed out that you are interested in >> out-of-the-box performance, let me complete the context: in case >> low_latency is left set, one gets, in return for this 12% loss, >> a) at least 1000% higher responsiveness, e.g., 1000% lower start-up >> times of applications under load [1]; >> b) 500-1000% higher throughput in multi-client server workloads, as I >> already pointed out [2]. >> > > I'm very happy that you could solve the problem without having to > compromise on any of the performance characteristics/features of BFQ! > > >> I'm going to prepare complete patches. In addition, if ok for you, >> I'll report these results on the bug you created. Then I guess we can >> close it. >> > > Sounds great! > Hi Paolo, Hope you are doing great! I was wondering if you got a chance to post these patches to LKML for review and inclusion... (No hurry, of course!) Also, since your fixes address the performance issues in BFQ, do you have any thoughts on whether they can be adapted to CFQ as well, to benefit the older stable kernels that still support CFQ? Thank you! Regards, Srivatsa VMware Photon OS
