[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: (reiserfs) Re: More on 2.2.18pre2aa2
> Yes, but "how hard is it reasonable for the kernel to try" is based on
> both items. A good first order approximation is number of requests.

I must strongly disagree with that claim. A request could be 512 bytes or

> It's still a queue - the queue of things we're going to take on this
> elevator swipe, right? And the problem is one of keeping a sane
> watermark on this queue - not too many requests to destroy latency
> but enough to let the elevator do some good.

Yes. OK I agree there. If you want an efficiency bound then you need to consider

> > Im talking about flow control/traffic shaping
> ...where the user sets a number exlpicitly for what performance they
> want. Again, if we're going to make the user set this latency

No they do not. The parameters are defined by the bandwidth and measured

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 13:28    [W:0.656 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site