Re: (reiserfs) Re: More on 2.2.18pre2aa2

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 06:23:00 EST


> Yes, but "how hard is it reasonable for the kernel to try" is based on
> both items. A good first order approximation is number of requests.

I must strongly disagree with that claim. A request could be 512 bytes or
128K.

> It's still a queue - the queue of things we're going to take on this
> elevator swipe, right? And the problem is one of keeping a sane
> watermark on this queue - not too many requests to destroy latency
> but enough to let the elevator do some good.

Yes. OK I agree there. If you want an efficiency bound then you need to consider
that.

> > Im talking about flow control/traffic shaping
>
> ...where the user sets a number exlpicitly for what performance they
> want. Again, if we're going to make the user set this latency

No they do not. The parameters are defined by the bandwidth and measured
behaviour.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:20 EST