On Wed, Jun 05 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 05 2002, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > > Le mer 05/06/2002 à 01:43, Andrew Morton a écrit :
> > >
> > > > Also, it has been suggested that the feature become more fully-fleshed,
> > > > to support desktops with one disk spun down, etc. It's not really
> > > > rocket science to do that - the `struct backing_dev_info' gives
> > > > a specific communication channel between the high-level VFS code and
> > > > the request queue. But that would require significantly more surgery
> > > > against the writeback code, so I'm fishing for requirements here. If
> > > > the current (simple) patch is sufficient then, well, it is sufficient.
> > >
> > > Have per-disk laptop-mode, so that some user-mode proggy (e.g. hotplug)
> > > could decide what to do.
> >
> > And get rid of disk_spun_up(), make it a queue flag instead and signal
> > the spin up before calling the request_fn instead of shoving it inside
> > the driver request_fn's.
>
> Then writes to the ramdisk would cause a spinup.
No of course not, that is what the queue flag would say (is this a disk
or not, or something to that effect). Besides, ram disk doesn't even use
a request_fn.
> Yes, it could be per-queue. That would add complexity to
> the already-murky fs/fs-writeback.c. It that justifiable?
I dunno, it's up to you. I guess this is mainly IDE specific anyways,
but you apply the same logic to just one (for instance) of your disks on
a home desktop system.
-- Jens Axboe- 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 Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:24 EST