From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270694AbTHAI7K (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 04:59:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S275194AbTHAI7K (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 04:59:10 -0400 Received: from natsmtp00.webmailer.de ([192.67.198.74]:3826 "EHLO post.webmailer.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270694AbTHAI7H (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2003 04:59:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3F2A2C14.9030801@softhome.net> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 11:00:04 +0200 From: "Ihar \"Philips\" Filipau" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030701 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Kumlien CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [SHED][IO-SHED] Are we missing the big picture? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am I right - judging from your posting - that we finally reached moment than Linux will have network-like queueing disciplines for disks and CPUs? In any way, CPU/disk throughput just another types of limited resource. It would be nice to be able to manage it - who gets more, who gets less. CPU/disk schedulers by manageability are far behind network. IMHO must have for servers. Ian Kumlien wrote: > Hi all, > > I have been following the sheduler and interactivity discussions closely > but via the marc.theaimsgroup.com archive, So i might be behind etc... > =P > > [Note: sorry if i sound like mr.know-it-all etc, just trying to get a > point across] > > Anyways, i think that the AS discussions that i have seen has missed > some points. Getting the processes priority in AS is one thing, but fist > of all i think there should be a stand off layer. Let me explain: > > I liked Jens Axobe's 'CBQ' alike implementation (based on the idea of > Andrea A. (afair i have the names right) since it does the most > important thing... which is *nothing* when there is no load (ie, pass > trough). > > AS might be/is the best damn io sheduler for loaded machines but when > there is no load, it's overhead. So in my opinion there should be > something that first warrants the usage of AS before it's actually > engaged. > > And, if it's only engaged during high load, additions like basing the > requests priority on the process/tasks priority would make total sense, > adding the 'wakeup on wait' or what it was would also make total > sense... But how many of your machines uses the disk 100% of the time? > (in the real world... ) > > I don't know how 'CBQ' was implemented but any 'we are under load now' > trigger would do it for me. > > Please see to it that my CC is included in any discussions =) > > PS. Or was it a version of SFQ? in that case s/CBQ/SFQ/g > DS. >