--sXc4Kmr5FA7axrvy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:52:57PM +0300, Jukka Marin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 01:35:03PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > As one of the mentors for this project, I think changing scheduling
> > priority can/should be investigated after the SoC project completes.
>=20
> If we have two (or more) I/O bound processes running, CPU usage is very
> low and the disk is 100% busy - I think changing the scheduling priorities
> would have little or no impact on the system performance, right?  There's
> no shortage of CPU cycles, so no matter how low the priority of any of the
> processes is, the process will always get the few cycles it needs to queue
> yet another I/O request to the disk system.
>=20
> Not that putting a process to sleep sounds that much better.. :-)

The scenario you describe isn't the one that this work was targeting. This=
=20
work is aimed at a case where there is/are reader(s) along with the=20
writer(s). So the work is to skew disk access towards them.

Take care,

Bill

--sXc4Kmr5FA7axrvy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFE6h6fWz+3JHUci9cRAnFLAJ4s3gyp8Mkca+2JZtY6f2/EfLZAHQCdGomS
isPf9WW312h/DQlwTha+ZUg=
=6KAF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sXc4Kmr5FA7axrvy--