> From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
quoted text
> Date: Thu, Apr 17, 2008 11:27:55AM +0200
>
> On Thu, Apr 17 2008, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > Maybe there is also another middle-ground solution. I'll try to sketch 
...
quoted text
> > Does it seem reasonable?
> 
> Not for CFQ, that will stay time based. The problem with #2 above is
> that it then quickly turns to various heuristics, which is just
> impossible to tune for general behaviour. Or it just falls apart for
> other real life situations.
> 

Ok.

After a brief offline discussion with paolo, here it is what we can do:

    o propose a patch for discussion that uses our WF2Q+ variant to
      schedule timeslices in cfq.  The resulting scheduler would be
      quite close to the EEVDF scheduler discussed some time ago for
      the cpu.

    o Introduce a timeout in bfq to give an upper time limit to the
      slices.  Since we have not experimented with that mixed approach
      before[*], we will need to do some tests with relevant workloads to
      see if/how it can work.

I fear that it will take some time, as we're both travelling in this
week.

[*] Anyway it is quite close to how cfq handles async queues, with their
slice_async and slice_async_rq, so it's definitely not something new.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/