On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 02:33:01PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 03:29:30PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > I am personally is not too excited about the case of putting async IO > > in separate groups due to the reason that async IO of one group will > > start impacting latencies of sync IO of another group and in practice > > it might not be desirable. But there are others who have use cases for > > separate async IO queue. So as long as switch is there to change the > > behavior, I am not too worried. > > Why not just fix cfq so that it prefers groups w/ sync IOs? There may be a sync+async group in front, but when switch into it, it decides to give its async queue a run. That's not necessarily a bad decision, but we do lose some control here. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>