Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:If this wasn't clear: I don't mean per-task plugs as in "the task explicitly plugs and unplugs the block device"[*]; I mean really per-task plugs.That would be insane. It would mean that you'd have to unplug whether you
I don't think it is.
wanted to or not. Ie you've now made "sys_readahead()" impossible to do well, and doing read-ahead across multiple files.
Now it is you who are ignoring what I've been saying. I've been saying that I don't think your sys_readahead examples have had much to do with plugging: 1. If there are no other requests to seek to, plugging doesn't matter; 2. If there are other requests to seek to, the queue won't be plugged or will soon become unplugged anyway. So the current system isn't somehow going to do the right thing every time and be immune to seeking.
You're ignoring all the _reasons_ for plugging in the first place.
I'm not, but the current system of plugging isn't ideal. Anyway, there isn't any point going on about it, if I want to change anything I at least need to come back with numbers. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- References:
- [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- Prev by Date: Re: OpenGL-based framebuffer concepts
- Next by Date: RE: [PATCH RFC] smt nice introduces significant lock contention
- Previous by thread: Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- Next by thread: Re: [rfc][patch] remove racy sync_page?
- Index(es):