On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, LA Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > Forgive me if this has been asked before, but has there ever
> > > been any thought of having a 'nice' value for disk accesses?.
> >
> > Not currently, but it would be trivial to adjust the maximum
> > elevator sorting latency according to the niceness of the
> > process. I have no idea how much this would help, though ...
>
> What process? By the time when bh hits the ll_rw_block()
> originating process may be dead.
Indeed, for write throttling we have to find another
solution. One thing we could do is set different
trottle targets for different processes.
(so process A is trottled at 10% dirty pages while
process B is trottled at 40% dirty pages ... with
priorities being recalculated once every second or
so to preserve fairness)
> And if you mean reads... Good luck propagating the originator
> information.
Isn't it the case that for most of the filesystem
reads the current process is the one that is the
originator of the request ?
regards,
Rik
--
"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 07 2000 - 21:00:08 EST