[PATCH 01/10] Documentation
vgoyal at redhat.com
Tue Mar 24 11:35:32 PDT 2009
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 07:41:01PM +0100, Fabio Checconi wrote:
> > From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com>
> > Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2009 02:29:06PM -0400
> > > Does keeping the sync queue in ready tree solves the problem too? Is
> > > it because it avoid a virtual time jump?
> > >
> > I have not tried the second approch yet. But that also should solve the
> > vtime jump issue.
> Do you mean that you intend to keep a queue with no backlog in the
> active tree?
Yes. Is it possible to keep a not-backlogged queue in the tree for later
expiry. So that we don't actively wait/idle for next request to come and
hope queue will become backlogged soon. Otherwise, it will be deleted from
the active queue. This is just a thought, I am not even sure how would it
interefere with bfq code.
All this to solve the vtime jump issue for sync queues.
More information about the Containers