Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.{18,19{-ck9},20rc1{-aa1}} with contest

[William Lee Irwin III]

Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> 2.5 (and read-latency) sort-of solve these problems by creating a
> massive seekstorm when there are competing reads and writes.  It's
> a pretty sad solution really.

On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 09:10:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Better would be to perform those reads and writes in nice big batches.
> That's easy for the writes, but for reads we need to wait for the
> application to submit another one.  That means actually deliberately
> leaving the disk head idle for a few milliseconds in the anticipation
> that the application will submit another nearby read.  This is called
> "anticipatory scheduling" and has been shown to provide 20%-70%
> performance boost in web serving workloads.   It just makes heaps of
> sense to me and I'd love to see it in Linux...
> See http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/sosp01/papers/iyer.pdf

This smacks of "deceptive idleness". OTOH I prefer to keep out of those
issues and focus on pure fault handling, TLB, and space consumption
issues. I/O scheduling is far afield for me, and I prefer to keep it so.

Bill