According to https://research.google.com/pubs/pub40801.html article, tail delay is problematic in enterprise service providers. According to https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2670988 article, FIFO scheduling works best and LIFO is worst for tail latency. As we test Linux scheduler called CFS, behaves mostly LIFO. Small changes to CFS makes it FIFO style and tail delay reduces to 50%. I want to argue about CFS strategy. It seems no body cares about tail latency at kernel level. How enterprise service providers overcome tail latency problem? Is it possible to at least have a flag that changes scheduler strategy for I/O intensive multi threaded applications? --- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
