Re: (reiserfs) Re: An elevator algorithm

2000-09-25 Thread Hans Reiser
Ragnar Kjørstad wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 03:23:26PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > > I think Xuan's algorithm is good, so I want to add to it.:-) > > > > Ragnar, I don't understand your objection to it. It is always the > > case that if you specify real > > time constraints that are impos

Re: (reiserfs) Re: An elevator algorithm

2000-09-24 Thread Ragnar Kjørstad
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 03:23:26PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > I think Xuan's algorithm is good, so I want to add to it.:-) > > Ragnar, I don't understand your objection to it. It is always the > case that if you specify real > time constraints that are impossible then they aren't met. My ob

Re: (reiserfs) Re: An elevator algorithm

2000-09-24 Thread Ragnar Kjørstad
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 06:31:46PM +0200, Xuan Baldauf wrote: > I do not understand you terminology. There is not one queue, there are two > queues. Two queues? What elevator code are you guys refering to when refering to "current" code? I just read the code for linux-2.4.0-test8 - that is the

Re: (reiserfs) Re: An elevator algorithm

2000-09-24 Thread Xuan Baldauf
Hans Reiser wrote: > I think Xuan's algorithm is good, so I want to add to it.:-) > > Ragnar, I don't understand your objection to it. It is always the case that if you >specify real > time constraints that are impossible then they aren't met. > > If you want to get fancy you could sort all e

Re: (reiserfs) Re: An elevator algorithm

2000-09-22 Thread Hans Reiser
I think Xuan's algorithm is good, so I want to add to it.:-) Ragnar, I don't understand your objection to it. It is always the case that if you specify real time constraints that are impossible then they aren't met. If you want to get fancy you could sort all expired time limit requests by b

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

2000-09-19 Thread 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 i

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

2000-09-19 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 10:38:52PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > I haven't had a chance to really look at Peter's mods yet, but surely > the current elevator can have many entries with 0 sequence. As an > example, say the start sequence is 3 and we received request sector > 10...1 in descending order

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

2000-09-19 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Sep 19 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > I don't see any reason why there can't be multiple p points in the current > > elevator. > > Without the proposed modification after the last barrier in the queue all the > requests should be in order. I haven't had a chance to really look at Pete

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

2000-09-19 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 09:41:17PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > I don't see any reason why there can't be multiple p points in the current > elevator. Without the proposed modification after the last barrier in the queue all the requests should be in order. Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list:

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

2000-09-19 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Sep 19 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > But there may be several p points in the queue, how are you going > > to keep track of all of them? > > With the current elevator there should be only 1 p point, but with the I don't see any reason why there can't be multiple p points in the curre

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

2000-09-19 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 09:17:51PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > But there may be several p points in the queue, how are you going > to keep track of all of them? With the current elevator there should be only 1 p point, but with the modification Peter suggested there can be more and we should track

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

2000-09-19 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Sep 19 2000, Peter Osterlund wrote: > > 2) the block number is smaller than head (or head->next > >if the current request is unplugged) > > The second condition is not so simple in the case of latency control. > Consider the following queue: > > sector: 100 200 300 400 10 20 30 > s

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

2000-09-19 Thread Jens Axboe
On Tue, Sep 19 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > This is a bug in Andrea's idea. The request should only > be inserted at the end of the list if: > > 1) the block numbre is bigger than head->prev (which you >already have) Of course. > 2) the block number is smaller than head (or head->next >

Re: (reiserfs) Re: An elevator algorithm

2000-09-16 Thread Xuan Baldauf
"Ragnar Kjørstad" wrote: > On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 01:17:53PM +0200, Xuan Baldauf wrote: > > I'm not a kernel hacker (and therefore I'm not familiar with the kernel > > terminology), and maybe this idea is already old, but here is an > > algorithm for an elevator which tries to guarantee smooth