>>An alternate approach might be to change the way the scheduler splits
>>things. That is, rather than marking I/O read vs write and scheduling
>>based on that, add a flag bit to mark them all sync vs async since
>>that's the distinction we actually care about. The normal paths can
>>all do read+sync and write+async, but you can now do things like
>>marking your truncate writes sync and readahead async.
> That will be worth investigating to see if the complexity is worth it.
> I think from a disk point of view, we still want to split batches between
> reads and writes. Could be wrong.
Yes, sync vs async is a better way to classify io requests than
read vs write and it's more correct from OS point of view. IMHO
it's not more complex then now. Just replace r/w with sy/as and
it will work.
Bye.
-
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 Jan 31 2003 - 22:00:12 EST