On 1/14/25 12:47, Florian Schmaus wrote: > While the rebalance thread is isually not compute bound, it does cause
s/isually/usually > a considerable amount of I/O. Since "reducing" the nice level from 0 > to 19, also implicitly reduces the threads best-effort I/O scheduling > class level from 4 to 7, the reblance thread's I/O will be depriotized s/depriotized/deprioritized/ > over normal I/O. > > Furthermore, we set the rebalance thread's scheduling class to BATCH, > which means that it will potentially receive a higher scheduling > latency. Making room for threads that need a low > schedulinglatency (e.g., interactive onces). s/schedulinglatency/ I know nothing about bcachefs internals, but could this also be a problem? The rebalance thread might not run for O(second) or so?
