On 8/1/13 17:04 , "Jens Axboe" wrote:
>On 08/01/2013 02:28 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
>> On 7/30/13 10:09 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:30:33PM -0400, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
Hi,
When some application launches several hundreds of processes that
issue
On 08/01/2013 02:28 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
> On 7/30/13 10:09 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:30:33PM -0400, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> When some application launches several hundreds of processes that issue
>>> only a few small sync I/O requests, CFQ may cause h
On 7/30/13 10:09 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:30:33PM -0400, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When some application launches several hundreds of processes that issue
>> only a few small sync I/O requests, CFQ may cause heavy latencies
>> (10+ seconds at the worst case), alt
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 03:30:33PM -0400, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When some application launches several hundreds of processes that issue
> only a few small sync I/O requests, CFQ may cause heavy latencies
> (10+ seconds at the worst case), although the request rate is low enough for
> th
Hi,
When some application launches several hundreds of processes that issue
only a few small sync I/O requests, CFQ may cause heavy latencies
(10+ seconds at the worst case), although the request rate is low enough for
the disk to handle it without waiting. This is because CFQ waits for
slice_idle
5 matches
Mail list logo