On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Matthias Brugger
matthias@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:41 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:24:23 +0700, Mulyadi Santosa said:
pardon me for any possible sillyness,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Matthias Brugger
matthias@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/23/2013 01:05 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:53:45 -0700, Raymond Jennings said:
The first heap would be synchronous
2013/3/25 Raymond Jennings shent...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Matthias Brugger
matthias@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/23/2013 01:05 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:53:45 -0700, Raymond
it would appear indeed that my primitive out of my hat is identical to LOOK.
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Matthias Brugger
matthias@gmail.com wrote:
2013/3/25 Raymond Jennings shent...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Matthias Brugger
matthias@gmail.com wrote:
On
On 03/20/2013 10:41 PM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:24:23 +0700, Mulyadi Santosa said:
pardon me for any possible sillyness, but what happen if there are
incoming I/O operation at very nearby sectors (or
On 03/23/2013 01:05 AM, Raymond Jennings wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:53:45 -0700, Raymond Jennings said:
The first heap would be synchronous requests such as reads and syncs
that someone in userspace
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Mulyadi Santosa
mulyadi.sant...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Raymond Jennings shent...@gmail.com wrote:
At any rate I suppose the best way to get started on this is to get a
grip on the api's involved in receiving requests from
I think I might split incoming requests into two heaps.
The first heap would be synchronous requests such as reads and syncs
that someone in userspace is blocking on.
The second is background I/O like writeback and readahead.
The same distinction that CFQ completely makes.
Anyway, I plan to
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:53:45 -0700, Raymond Jennings said:
The first heap would be synchronous requests such as reads and syncs
that someone in userspace is blocking on.
The second is background I/O like writeback and readahead.
The same distinction that CFQ completely makes.
Again, this
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:53:45 -0700, Raymond Jennings said:
The first heap would be synchronous requests such as reads and syncs
that someone in userspace is blocking on.
The second is background I/O like writeback and
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:37:41 -0700, Raymond Jennings said:
Hmm...Maybe a hybrid approach that allows a finite number of reverse
seeks, or as I suspect deadline does a finite delay before abandoning
the close stuff to march to the boonies.
Maybe. Maybe not. It's going to depend on the
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:13 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:37:41 -0700, Raymond Jennings said:
Hmm...Maybe a hybrid approach that allows a finite number of reverse
seeks, or as I suspect deadline does a finite delay before abandoning
the close stuff to march to
Hi
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Raymond Jennings shent...@gmail.com wrote:
At any rate I suppose the best way to get started on this is to get a
grip on the api's involved in receiving requests from above and
dispatching them below. Is studying the deadline scheduler a good
start or
I've been pondering making a very simple IO scheduler
one step above noop, just keeps everything in a big heap sorted by
position and a single cursor bouncing from head to tail shaving off
requests in a loop of ascending and descending sweeps.
Any gotchas I need to be aware of or can I simply
On 3/20/13, Raymond Jennings shent...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been pondering making a very simple IO scheduler
one step above noop, just keeps everything in a big heap sorted by
position and a single cursor bouncing from head to tail shaving off
requests in a loop of ascending and descending
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:24:23 +0700, Mulyadi Santosa said:
pardon me for any possible sillyness, but what happen if there are
incoming I/O operation at very nearby sectors (or perhaps at the same
sector?)? I suppose, the elevator will prioritize them first over the
rest? (i.e starving will
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 2:03 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 02:24:23 +0700, Mulyadi Santosa said:
pardon me for any possible sillyness, but what happen if there are
incoming I/O operation at very nearby sectors (or perhaps at the same
sector?)? I suppose, the elevator
The ongoing thread reminds me of a simple question I've had since I
first read about linux' mutiple I/O schedulers. Why is the choice of
I/O scheduler global to the whole kernel, rather than per-device or
similar?
Consider a system with both traditional rotating disks and SSDs - not
at all far
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:41:31 -0700, Raymond Jennings said:
Suppose you have requests at sectors 1, 4, 5, and 6
You dispatch sectors 1, 4, and 5, leaving the head parked at 5 and the
direction as ascending.
But suddenly, just before you get a chance to dispatch for sector 6,
sector 4 gets
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:05:09 -0700, Arlie Stephens said:
The ongoing thread reminds me of a simple question I've had since I
first read about linux' mutiple I/O schedulers. Why is the choice of
I/O scheduler global to the whole kernel, rather than per-device or
similar?
They aren't global to
On Mar 20 2013, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:05:09 -0700, Arlie Stephens said:
The ongoing thread reminds me of a simple question I've had since I
first read about linux' mutiple I/O schedulers. Why is the choice of
I/O scheduler global to the whole kernel, rather
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:10 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:41:31 -0700, Raymond Jennings said:
Suppose you have requests at sectors 1, 4, 5, and 6
You dispatch sectors 1, 4, and 5, leaving the head parked at 5 and the
direction as ascending.
But suddenly, just
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Arlie Stephens ar...@worldash.org wrote:
On Mar 20 2013, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 16:05:09 -0700, Arlie Stephens said:
The ongoing thread reminds me of a simple question I've had since I
first read about linux' mutiple I/O
23 matches
Mail list logo
