Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 17:52:47 -0700
From: Neil Schemenauer <nas@python.ca>
To: Con Kolivas <kernel@kolivas.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@digeo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][CFT] new IO scheduler for 2.4.20
Message-ID: <20030531005247.GA646@glacier.arctrix.com>
References: <20030530220923.GA404@glacier.arctrix.com> <200305310940.41780.kernel@kolivas.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200305310940.41780.kernel@kolivas.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Con Kolivas wrote:
> How does this compare to akpm's read-latency2 patch that he posed some
> time ago? That seems to make a massive difference but was knocked back
> for style or approach.

It looks like they do fairly similar things.  Andrew's patch puts
unmergable read requests at a fixed distance from the front of the
queue.  My patch lets unmerged reads skip max((reads - writes), 0)
requests.  That's probably more fair when lots of reads and writes are
in queue.

Andrew's idea of always allowing a merge is probably a good idea and
could be adopted.

My patch uses a fixed deadline for requests (similar to Jen's deadline
scheduler).  I'm not sure if that's an advantage or not.  Note that the
deadline of writes are ignored when inserting a read.

I didn't change the size of the request queue.  I can't find where that
gets set in 2.4.20. :-(

Sorry for the hand-waving.  I didn't know about Andrew's patch and I
obviously didn't do enough testing yet.

  Neil
-
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/