Re: (reiserfs) Re: An elevator algorithm (patch)

[Jens Axboe]

On Tue, Sep 19 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > 7[3] 8[2] 9[1] 10[0] 3[3] 4[2] 5[1] 6[0] 1[3] 2[2]
>                                          p
> With point `p' I mean the request after last barrier in the queue.

Ah, I suspected we were talking past each other.

> Then when we try to insert 99 it goes here:
> 
>       100[0] 102[3] 103[3] 104[3] 99[3]
>                                   p
> 
> So we have two low peaks in the not starving queue and we should move the p
> to the latest on the right.

Ok good, I've read Peter's patch now. Looks good, I've put it in my
tree as well and will do some testing.

> Also we should make different cases in function of what p->prev is
> (barrier/head/real_head/normalreq).
> 
> I don't think it's worthwhile (even with the current algorithm where it's easy
> to account for p).

I suspect you are right, it's marginal.

-- 
* Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* SuSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/