Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1625817
| From | Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq |
| Date | 2017-04-19 07:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <txQ2l-7Bg-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tuDuG-788-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuEh3-7s0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuJgK-2nZ-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tuYz8-3XH-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 04/11/17 00:29, Paolo Valente wrote: > >> Il giorno 10 apr 2017, alle ore 17:15, Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com> 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 0. Depending on the device, setting slice_ilde to >>> 0 may help a lot too (as well as with CFQ). If the throughput is >>> still low also after forcing BFQ to an only-throughput mode, then you >>> hit some bug, and I'll have a little more work to do ... >> >> Has it been considered to make applications tell the I/O scheduler >> whether to optimize for latency or for throughput? It shouldn't be that >> hard for window managers and shells to figure out whether or not a new >> application that is being started is interactive or not. This would >> require a mechanism that allows applications to provide such information >> to the I/O scheduler. Wouldn't that be a better approach than the I/O >> scheduler trying to guess whether or not an application is an interactive >> application? > > IMO that would be an (or maybe the) optimal solution, in terms of both > throughput and latency. We have even developed a prototype doing what > you propose, for Android. Unfortunately, I have not yet succeeded in > getting support, to turn it into candidate production code, or to make > a similar solution for lsb-compliant systems. Hello Paolo, 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 application uses the ioprio_set() system call to set the I/O priority to IOPRIO_CLASS_RT? Thanks, Bart.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> - 2017-04-10 17:20 +0200
Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2017-04-11 09:40 +0200
Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> - 2017-04-19 07:10 +0200
Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> - 2017-04-19 09:10 +0200
Re: bfq-mq performance comparison to cfq Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com> - 2017-04-19 17:50 +0200
csiph-web