Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > + * This all assumes that the rate of taking requests is much, much higher
> > + * than the rate of releasing them. Which is very true.
>
> This is not necessarily true for read requests.
>
> If each read request is synchronous and the process will
> generate the next read request after the current one
> has finished, then it's quite possible to clog up the
> queue with read requests which are generated at exactly
> the same rate as they're processed.
>
> Couldn't this still cause starvation, even with your patch?
No, that's fine.
The problem which the comment refers to is: how to provide
per-process request batching without running off and creating
per-process reservation pools or such.
What I'm relying on is that when a sleeper is woken (at low-water),
there are at least (high-water - low-water) requests available before
get_request will again sleep. And that the woken process will be
able to grab a decent number of those non-blocking requests. I
suspect it's always true, as long as (high-water - low_water) is
"much greater than" the number of CPUs.
The synchronous reader is well-behaved, and should be nicely
FIFO if we're getting low on requests.
-
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:20 EST