Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 25 Jan 2003 04:22:39 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.59-mm5 |
| |
Giuliano Pochini wrote:
>>>An alternate approach might be to change the way the scheduler splits >>>things. That is, rather than marking I/O read vs write and scheduling >>>based on that, add a flag bit to mark them all sync vs async since >>>that's the distinction we actually care about. The normal paths can >>>all do read+sync and write+async, but you can now do things like >>>marking your truncate writes sync and readahead async. >>> > >>That will be worth investigating to see if the complexity is worth it. >>I think from a disk point of view, we still want to split batches between >>reads and writes. Could be wrong. >> > >Yes, sync vs async is a better way to classify io requests than >read vs write and it's more correct from OS point of view. IMHO >it's not more complex then now. Just replace r/w with sy/as and >it will work. > We probably wouldn't want to go that far as you obviously can only merge reads with reads and writes with writes, a flag would be fine. We have to get the basics working first though ;)
- 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/
|  |