Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
CFQ prioritiesCFQ prioritiesPosted Aug 29, 2005 13:12 UTC (Mon) by joib (guest, #8541)In reply to: CFQ priorities by thames Parent article: The 2.6.13 kernel is out
Were would it actually be needed?
My guess is that processes which are deemed important enough to get more cpu time also should get more I/O time and vice versa.
Or to put it another way, since I/O is orders of magnitude slower than just about anything else, if I/O is the bottleneck then the I/O heavy process whould also get a high cpu priority, so that when it needs cpu it gets it so it can go back to doing I/O ASAP.
Certainly one could design any number of synthetic benchmarks were different cpu and I/O priorities would be beneficial, but do these situations really occur in real life?
(Log in to post comments)
CFQ priorities Posted Aug 29, 2005 16:49 UTC (Mon) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] I may want an IO bound process to have a lower IO priority than other processes, but that doesnt mean I necessarily want it to have to wait for CPU time when it is ready for it. By definition an IO bound process is not going to be competing much with other IO bound processes for CPU time, so it doesnt seem to make much sense to force them to use CPU priority for their IO contention, when that will put them at a disadvantage relative to CPU bound processes; it seems reasonable for all IO bound processes to have a high CPU priority, as has traditionally been the case. Larry
|
|||||||||||||