On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 08:36 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Dec 21, 2005, at 08:21, Trond Myklebust wrote:
...and if you stick in a faster server?...
There is _NO_ fundamental difference between NFS and a local filesystem that warrants marking one as "interactive" and the other as "noninteractive". What you are basically saying is that all I/O should be marked as TASK_NONINTERACTIVE.
Uhh, what part of disk/NFS/filesystem access is "interactive"? Which of those sleeps directly involve responding to user-interface events? _That_ is the whole point of the interactivity bonus, and precisely why Ingo introduced TASK_NONINTERACTIVE sleeps; so that processes that are not being useful for interactivity could be moved away from TASK_NONINTERRUPTABLE, with the end result that the X- server could be run at priority 0 without harming interactivity, even during heavy *disk*, *NFS*, and *network* activity. Admittedly, that may not be what some people want, but they're welcome to turn off the interactivity bonuses via some file in /proc (sorry, don't remember which at the moment).
Then have io_schedule() automatically set that flag, and convert NFS to
use io_schedule(), or something along those lines. I don't want a bunch
of RT-specific flags littering the NFS/RPC code.