On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 20:05 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > So we may have different expectations, because we've seen different
> > patterns. Me, I've seen the "events are huge, and you stagger them", so
> > that the previous event has time to flow out to disk while you generate
> > the next one. There, MS_ASYNC starting IO is _wrong_, because the scale of
> > the event is just huge, so trying to push it through the IO subsystem asap
> > just makes everything suck.
>
> Isn't the benefit of starting writing immediately greater the smaller
> the area in question? If so, couldn't a heuristic be found to decide whether
> to initiate IO at once?
Quite possibly. I suspect you could/should take other issues into account
too (like whether the queue to the device is busy or bdflush is already
working).
I wouldn't object to that.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
