Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:02:42 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: (reiserfs) Re: An elevator algorithm (patch) |
| |
On Tue, Sep 19 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > 7[3] 8[2] 9[1] 10[0] 3[3] 4[2] 5[1] 6[0] 1[3] 2[2] > p > With point `p' I mean the request after last barrier in the queue.
Ah, I suspected we were talking past each other.
> Then when we try to insert 99 it goes here: > > 100[0] 102[3] 103[3] 104[3] 99[3] > p > > So we have two low peaks in the not starving queue and we should move the p > to the latest on the right.
Ok good, I've read Peter's patch now. Looks good, I've put it in my tree as well and will do some testing.
> Also we should make different cases in function of what p->prev is > (barrier/head/real_head/normalreq). > > I don't think it's worthwhile (even with the current algorithm where it's easy > to account for p).
I suspect you are right, it's marginal.
-- * Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> * SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |