On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 19:12 +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

Il giorno 31 ago 2017, alle ore 19:06, Mike Galbraith [off-list ref] h=

a scritto:

quoted

=20
On Thu, 2017-08-31 at 15:42 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 08:46:28AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

[SECOND TAKE, with just the name of one of the tester fixed]
=20
Hi,
while testing the read-write unfairness issues reported by Mel, I
found BFQ failing to guarantee good responsiveness against heavy
random sync writes in the background, i.e., multiple writers doing
random writes and systematic fdatasync [1]. The failure was caused by
three related bugs, because of which BFQ failed to guarantee to
high-weight processes the expected fraction of the throughput.
=20

=20
Queued on top of Ming's most recent series even though that's still a =

work

quoted

quoted

in progress. I should know in a few days how things stand.

=20
It seems to have cured an interactivity issue I regularly meet during
kbuild final link/depmod phase of fat kernel kbuild, especially bad
with evolution mail usage during that on spinning rust.  Can't really
say for sure given this is not based on measurement.

=20
=20
Great!  Actually, when I found these bugs, I thought also about the
issues you told me you experienced with updatedb running.  But then I
forgot to tell you that these fixes might help.

I'm going to actively test that, because that is every bit as
infuriating as the evolution thing, only updatedb is nukable. =C2=A0In fact=
,
it infuriated me to the point that it no longer has a crontab entry,
runs only when I decide to run it. =C2=A0At this point, I'll be pretty
surprised if that rotten <naughty words> is still alive.

	-Mike