Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:35:48 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>, Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>,
       Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>, Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: RFC on io-stalls patch
Message-ID: <20030713193548.GL16313@dualathlon.random>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.55L.0307081651390.21817@freak.distro.conectiva> <20030710135747.GT825@suse.de> <1057932804.13313.58.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030712073710.GK843@suse.de> <1058034751.13318.95.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030713090116.GU843@suse.de> <1058113238.13313.127.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030713174709.GA843@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030713174709.GA843@suse.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 934
Lines: 22

On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 07:47:09PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Just catering to the sync reads is probably good enough, and I think
> that passing in that extra bit of information is done the best through
> just a b_state bit.

not sure if we should pass this bit of info, I guess if we add it we can
just threats all reads equally and give them the spare reserved
requests unconditionally, so the highlevel isn't complicated (of course
it would be optional, so nothing would break but it would be annoying
for benchmarking new fs having to patch stuff first to see the effect of
the spare reserved requests).

> I'll try and bench a bit tomorrow with that patched in.

Cool thanks.

Andrea
-
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/