On Tue 11-06-19 15:34:48, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

On 6/2/19 12:04 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

quoted

On 5/30/19 3:45 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

[...]

quoted

quoted

At any rate, since you pointed out that you are interested in
out-of-the-box performance, let me complete the context: in case
low_latency is left set, one gets, in return for this 12% loss,
a) at least 1000% higher responsiveness, e.g., 1000% lower start-up
times of applications under load [1];
b) 500-1000% higher throughput in multi-client server workloads, as I
already pointed out [2].

I'm very happy that you could solve the problem without having to
compromise on any of the performance characteristics/features of BFQ!

quoted

I'm going to prepare complete patches.  In addition, if ok for you,
I'll report these results on the bug you created.  Then I guess we can
close it.

Sounds great!

Hi Paolo,

Hope you are doing great!

I was wondering if you got a chance to post these patches to LKML for
review and inclusion... (No hurry, of course!)

Also, since your fixes address the performance issues in BFQ, do you
have any thoughts on whether they can be adapted to CFQ as well, to
benefit the older stable kernels that still support CFQ?

Since CFQ doesn't exist in current upstream kernel anymore, I seriously
doubt you'll be able to get any performance improvements for it in the
stable kernels...

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR