Oliver Neukum wrote:
>Am Dienstag, 5. August 2003 09:26 schrieb Con Kolivas:
>
>>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 16:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>We do prefer that TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE processes are woken promptly so they
>>>can submit more IO and go back to sleep. Remember that we are artificially
>>>leaving the disk head idle in the expectation that the task will submit
>>>more I/O. It's pretty sad if the CPU scheduler leaves the anticipated task
>>>in the doldrums for five milliseconds.
>>>
>>Indeed that has been on my mind. This change doesn't affect how long it takes
>>to wake up. It simply prevents tasks from getting full interactive status
>>during the period they are doing unint. sleep.
>>
>
>If you take that to its logical conclusion, such tasks should be woken
>immediately. Likewise, the io scheduler should be notified when you know
>that the task won't do io or will do other io, like waiting on character
>devices, go paging out or terminate.
>
I don't think that is the logical conclusion because you are balancing
against other things.
As for the io scheduler, no, there is a lot that can be done (including
waiting on character devs) before it is no longer worth keeping the disk
waiting. AS really doesn't care in the slightest what a process does
between submitting IOs*, what is important is simply its IO pattern.
* except exit which is an easy case of course.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 22:00:28 EST