Re: block_device usage and incorrect block writes

2007-01-24 Thread Jens Axboe
On Wed, Jan 24 2007, Chris Frost wrote: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:13:06PM +1100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > noop doesn't guarentee that IO will be queued with the device in the > > order in which they are submitted, and it definitely doesn't guarentee > > that the device will process them in the orde

Re: block_device usage and incorrect block writes

2007-01-24 Thread Chris Frost
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:13:06PM +1100, Jens Axboe wrote: > noop doesn't guarentee that IO will be queued with the device in the > order in which they are submitted, and it definitely doesn't guarentee > that the device will process them in the order in which they are > dispatched. noop being FIF

Re: block_device usage and incorrect block writes

2007-01-18 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Jan 18 2007 13:13, Jens Axboe wrote: > >noop doesn't guarentee that IO will be queued with the device in the >order in which they are submitted, and it definitely doesn't guarentee >that the device will process them in the order in which they are >dispatched. noop being FIFO basically means th

Re: block_device usage and incorrect block writes

2007-01-17 Thread Jens Axboe
On Wed, Jan 17 2007, Chris Frost wrote: > We are working on a kernel module which uses the linux block device > interface as part of a larger project, are seeing unexpected block > write behavior from our usage of the noop scheduler, and were > wondering whether anyone might have feedback on what t

block_device usage and incorrect block writes

2007-01-17 Thread Chris Frost
We are working on a kernel module which uses the linux block device interface as part of a larger project, are seeing unexpected block write behavior from our usage of the noop scheduler, and were wondering whether anyone might have feedback on what the behavior we see? We would like to send block