From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756999AbZJBPcU (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:32:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756878AbZJBPcU (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:32:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39312 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756877AbZJBPcQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:32:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:31:17 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Corrado Zoccolo Cc: Mike Galbraith , Jens Axboe , Ingo Molnar , Ulrich Lukas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, mikew@google.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, jmoyer@redhat.com, dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, agk@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org, jmarchan@redhat.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 Message-ID: <20091002153117.GB4494@redhat.com> References: <200910021255.27689.czoccolo@gmail.com> <20091002124921.GA4494@redhat.com> <4e5e476b0910020827s23e827b1n847c64e355999d4a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4e5e476b0910020827s23e827b1n847c64e355999d4a@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 05:27:55PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:55:25PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > > > > Actually I am not touching this code. Looking at the V10, I have not > > changed anything here in idling code. > > I based my analisys on the original patch: > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0907.1/01793.html > Oh.., you are talking about fairness for seeky process patch. I thought you are talking about current IO controller patches. Actually they both have this notion of "fairness=1" parameter but do different things in patches, hence the confusion. Thanks Vivek > Mike, can you confirm which version of the fairness patch did you use > in your tests? > > Corrado > > > Thanks > > Vivek > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Goyal Subject: Re: IO scheduler based IO controller V10 Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:31:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20091002153117.GB4494@redhat.com> References: <200910021255.27689.czoccolo@gmail.com> <20091002124921.GA4494@redhat.com> <4e5e476b0910020827s23e827b1n847c64e355999d4a@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: device-mapper development Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4e5e476b0910020827s23e827b1n847c64e355999d4a@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Corrado Zoccolo Cc: dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, dpshah@google.com, Jens Axboe , agk@redhat.com, balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paolo.valente@unimore.it, jmarchan@redhat.com, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, Ulrich Lukas , mikew@google.com, jmoyer@redhat.com, nauman@google.com, Ingo Molnar , m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, riel@redhat.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Mike Galbraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, righi.andrea@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 05:27:55PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:55:25PM +0200, Corrado Zoccolo wrote: > > > > Actually I am not touching this code. Looking at the V10, I have not > > changed anything here in idling code. > > I based my analisys on the original patch: > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0907.1/01793.html > Oh.., you are talking about fairness for seeky process patch. I thought you are talking about current IO controller patches. Actually they both have this notion of "fairness=1" parameter but do different things in patches, hence the confusion. Thanks Vivek > Mike, can you confirm which version of the fairness patch did you use > in your tests? > > Corrado > > > Thanks > > Vivek > >