[PATCH 01/10] Documentation

Nauman Rafique nauman at google.com
Tue Mar 24 11:49:35 PDT 2009


On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

If only vtime jump is an issue, can we solve it by delaying vtime
jump? That is, even if we serve an entity with a bigger vtime, we
don't update the reference vtime of the service tree until after some
time?

>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>


More information about the Containers mailing list