On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 10:18 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> I guess that both the above issues may not be dramatic. In contrast,
> the following last issue seems harder to address: BFQ uses two
> different privileging schemes, one suitable for interactive
> applications, and one suitable for soft rea
> Il giorno 25 apr 2017, alle ore 11:40, Juri Lelli ha
> scritto:
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry if I jump into this interesting conversation, but I felt some people
> might have missed this and might be interested as well (even if from a
> slightly different POW). Let me Cc them (Patrick, Morten, Peter, J
Hi,
sorry if I jump into this interesting conversation, but I felt some people
might have missed this and might be interested as well (even if from a
slightly different POW). Let me Cc them (Patrick, Morten, Peter, Joel,
Andres).
On 19/04/17 09:02, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
> > Il giorno 19 apr 201
On Wed, 2017-04-19 at 09:02 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 07:01, Bart Van Assche
> > ha scritto:
> > What API was used by the Android application to tell the I/O scheduler
> > to optimize for latency? Do you think that it would be sufficient if the
> > applicat
> Il giorno 19 apr 2017, alle ore 07:01, Bart Van Assche
> ha scritto:
>
> On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>
>>> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche
>>> ha scritto:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
That said, if you do always w
On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> That said, if you do always want maximum throughput, even at the
>>> expense of latency, then just switch off low-la
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
> > Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann
> > ha scritto:
> >
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818
> > and did some fio tests to compare the behavior to CFQ
> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche
> ha scritto:
>
> On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> That said, if you do always want maximum throughput, even at the
>> expense of latency, then just switch off low-latency heuristics, i.e.,
>> set low_latency to
> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:55, Paolo Valente
> ha scritto:
>
>>
>> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> Hi Paolo,
>>
>> I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818
>> and did some fio tests to compare the behavior
On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 11:55 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:
> That said, if you do always want maximum throughput, even at the
> expense of latency, then just switch off low-latency heuristics, i.e.,
> set low_latency to 0. Depending on the device, setting slice_ilde to
> 0 may help a lot too (as well
> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 11:05, Andreas Herrmann
> ha scritto:
>
> Hi Paolo,
>
> I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818
> and did some fio tests to compare the behavior to CFQ.
>
> My understanding is that bfq-mq is supposed to be merged sooner or
> lat
Hi Paolo,
I've looked at your WIP branch as of 4.11.0-bfq-mq-rc4-00155-gbce0818
and did some fio tests to compare the behavior to CFQ.
My understanding is that bfq-mq is supposed to be merged sooner or
later and then it will be the only reasonable I/O scheduler with
blk-mq for rotational devices.
12 matches
Mail list logo