[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: stochastic fair queueing in the elevator [Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.20-ck3 / aa / rmap with contest]
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 10:45:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > perspective it does nullify the need for readahead (though
> > it is obivously still needed for other reasons).
> I'm guessing that physically it may be needed from a head prospective
> too, I doubt it only has to do with the in-core overhead. Seeing it all
> before reaching the seek point might allow the disk to do smarter things

> NOTE: just to be sure, I'm not at all against anticpiatory scheduling,

Most disks seem to have a large cache, but with the cache unit
for most of the cache being one _track_ at a time.

This has the effect of the disk reading one track in at a time,
but only being able to cache a few of these tracks in its cache.

Anticipatory scheduling should reduce any thrashing of this disk


Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:""></a>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.079 / U:10.080 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site