Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>that would work, but I think it would seriously starve the other device
>>>on the same channel.
>>
>>We starve anyway, becouse the kernel isn't real time and we can't
>>guarantee "sleeping" for some maximum time and comming back.
>>We don't reschedule the kernel during this kind of "sleeping".
>>And we can't know that a command on the "mate" will not take
>>extraordinary amounts of time. It's only a problem if mixing travan
>>tapes with disks on a channel.
>
>
> I'm thinking about the alternation of the devices so one device can't
> starve the other device off the channel.
Ah so you are thinking about two equally powered devices
competing for the channel. Something I would call the "sumo fight"
situation. Well disks didn't use the "sleeping" mechanism at all anyway
and the chances someone would do cp from CD-ROM to CD-ROM are low.
Finally I think that the proper granularity of scheduling requests to
the drive is, well, the request layer. The queue processing layer should
handle this becouse otherwise we would have two "competing" optimization
mechanisms. And there we are indeed able to actually relinquish some CPU
time. If you look at an request processing optimization as a low pass
signal filter it's immediately obvious that the effects of chaining them
can be, well at least "counter intuitive".
-
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 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:15 EST