On Wed, Feb 10 2016, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27 2015, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:10 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>> If you treated all reads and writed the same, then I can't see value in
>>> restoring fair scheduling. If there is any difference, then I suspect
>>> w
On Sun, Dec 27 2015, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:10 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 16 2015, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:44 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
Commit: c05eecf63610 ("SUNRPC: Don't allow low priority tasks to pre-empt
highe
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:10 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16 2015, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:44 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>>
>>> Commit: c05eecf63610 ("SUNRPC: Don't allow low priority tasks to pre-empt
>>> higher priority ones")
>>>
>>> removed the 'fair schedulin
On Wed, Dec 16 2015, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:44 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>>
>> Commit: c05eecf63610 ("SUNRPC: Don't allow low priority tasks to pre-empt
>> higher priority ones")
>>
>> removed the 'fair scheduling' feature from SUNRPC priority queues.
>> This feature cause
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 6:44 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> Commit: c05eecf63610 ("SUNRPC: Don't allow low priority tasks to pre-empt
> higher priority ones")
>
> removed the 'fair scheduling' feature from SUNRPC priority queues.
> This feature caused problems for some queues (send queue and session sl
5 matches
Mail list logo