![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Dec 02 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 01 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > So, here my patch proposal. Ontop of 2.4.20-rmap15a. > > > > > > Looks good, now lets test it. If the patch is as needed as you > > > say we should push it to marcelo ;) > > > > Yes lets for heavens sake not fix the problem, merge the hack. > > If it fails to find a merge or insert the current 2.4 elevator > will stick a read at the far end of the request queue. That's > quite arbitrary, and is the worst possible thing to do with it. > > read-latency2 will put the read a tunable distance from the head. > Add a few embellishments to avoid permanent writer starvation, > and that's basically all it does. I just think that the design of the thing is ugly. It's clamped on to the current elevator instead of redoing the core based on the principles of read-starvation that it introduces (this is the only good thing that has come out of the patch). > So rather than just keeping on calling it a "hack" could you please > describe what is actually wrong with the idea? I've never said that the idea is wrong, it's the solution that is an ugly hack. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 11:31 [W:0.191 / U:0.060 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||