[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: elevator algorithm bug in ll_rw_blk.c
    On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Chris Wedgwood wrote:

    > On Mon, Nov 09, 1998 at 11:37:43PM +0000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
    > > <> said:
    > >
    > > > as v2.2 is expected soon I better bring this topic up now. As you
    > > > know the "elevator algorihm" is employed for disk I/O, but -- it
    > > > *looks* broken to me.
    > >
    > > It isn't!
    > How long has it not been broken for?
    > I ask this because back aroun 2.1.26 I made a small char device which
    > allowed to to log and then dump the sequences of disk update produced
    > during a `sync' operation.
    > Anyhow, the net result of this was that they were not optimally
    > order, not even close.

    Optimal order is not possible unless you know the future ;-)

    The request *should* be optimally ordered within the current request queue
    state. I.e. if the queue has request for the blocks [4, 10000, 10005] and
    the 'elevator' is going 'up', you issue 4, then 10000. If you then get a
    new request for block 5, your're out of luck. This is the classical
    elevator alg. from OS course, I assume that's what Linux uses.



    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.029 / U:8.132 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site