From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: Do not overload dispatch queue (Was: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10) Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:02:33 +0200 Message-ID: <1254578553.7499.5.camel__47076.5744838447$1254578607$gmane$org@marge.simson.net> References: <20091002172554.GJ31616@kernel.dk> <20091002172842.GA4884@elte.hu> <20091002173732.GK31616@kernel.dk> <1254507215.8667.7.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091002181903.GN31616@kernel.dk> <1254548931.8299.18.camel@marge.simson.net> <1254549378.8299.21.camel@marge.simson.net> <20091003112915.GA12925@redhat.com> <20091003124049.GB12925@redhat.com> <20091003132115.GB31616@kernel.dk> <20091003135623.GD12925@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091003135623.GD12925-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Vivek Goyal Cc: dhaval-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Jens Axboe , agk-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, balbir-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, paolo.valente-rcYM44yAMweonA0d6jMUrA@public.gmane.org, jmarchan-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, fernando-gVGce1chcLdL9jVzuh4AOg@public.gmane.org, Ulrich Lukas , jmoyer-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, Ingo Molnar , riel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, fchecconi-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, righi.andrea-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Linus Torvalds List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 09:56 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > I have kept the overload delay period as "cfq_slice_sync" same as Mike had > done. We shall have to experiment what is a good waiting perioed. Is 100ms > too long if we are waiting for a request from same process which recently > finished IO and we did not enable idle on it. > > I guess we can tweak the delay period as we move along. I kept the delay period very short to minimize possible damage. Without the idle thing, it wasn't enough, but with, worked a treat, as does your patch. -Mike