lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: io_request_lock patch?
On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 09:20:22PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> True. In theory it would be possible to do request slot stealing from
> idle queues, in fact it's doable without adding any additional overhead
> to struct request. I did discuss this with [someone, forgot who] last
> year, when the per-queue slots where introduced.
>
> I'm not sure I want to do this though. If you have lots of disks, then
> yes there will be some wastage if they are idle. IMO that's ok. What's
> not ok and what I do want to fix is that slower devices get just as many
> slots as a 15K disk for instance. For, say, floppy or CDROM devices we
> really don't need to waste that much RAM. This will change for 2.5, not
> before.

Unless there is some serious evidence substantiating the need for
stealing request slots from other devices to avoid starvation, it
makes sense to avoid it and go for a simpler scheme. I suspect that device
type based slot allocation should just suffice.

Thanks
Dipankar
--
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@sequent.com> Project: http://lse.sourceforge.net
Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
-
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 12:56    [W:0.036 / U:16.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site