On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 08:27:30AM -0800, Nivedita Singhvi wrote:
> Although the usual answer for what scheduling algorithm is
> best is almost always "depends on the workload", it was
> suggested to me that the cfq was still the best option to
> go with. What do people feel about that? (Or is AS going
> to remain default?).
This is a different dicussion.
But, yes, I would agree that CFQ (v3) is the best default choice.
Jens, should we maybe make sure that the blockback driver does use
different (fake) UIDs for the domains that it serves to provide
the fairness between them. Next step would be to allow to tweak
IO priorities. Or, to make it more general, add a parameter (call
it uid), that a block driver can pass down to the IO scheduler
and that would normally be current->uid but may be set differently?
> Also, we're making the assumption here that guest OS = virtual
> driver/device. I would rather we not make that assumption
> always. This may be moot because I was also told there might
> be a patch floating around (-mm ?) that allows you to
> select scheduling algorithm on a per-device basis. Anyone
It's part of 2.6.11.
garloff@tpkurt:~ $ cat /sys/block/hda/queue/scheduler
noop anticipatory deadline [cfq]
Kurt Garloff, Director SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Description: PGP signature
Xen-devel mailing list