> By flushing part of each dirty list at a time (minimum 1 buffer),
> and circularily scanning these dirty lists, bdflush will have far
> more chance to feed several devices, before having to wait, than
> using a single dirty list.
This seems like a winning idea to me.
> Basically, for SCSI disks, using for example 8 dirty lru lists and
> the following hash: [SNIP]
But why would we ever want to use an LRU list for write-outs?
It would be much better to sort the buffers in the order they're
occupying on the disk, that'll give the lower layers a better
chance of doing some I/O clustering and will reduce search times,
improve throughput, etc...
We can always free the clean buffers in LRU order later on.
Rik -- Open Source: you deserve to be in control of your data.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux Memory Management site: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/ |
| Nederlandse Linux documentatie: http://www.nl.linux.org/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/