On Mon, Dec 02 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 01 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > > So, here my patch proposal. Ontop of 2.4.20-rmap15a.
> > >
> > > Looks good, now lets test it. If the patch is as needed as you
> > > say we should push it to marcelo ;)
> >
> > Yes lets for heavens sake not fix the problem, merge the hack.
>
> If it fails to find a merge or insert the current 2.4 elevator
> will stick a read at the far end of the request queue. That's
> quite arbitrary, and is the worst possible thing to do with it.
>
> read-latency2 will put the read a tunable distance from the head.
> Add a few embellishments to avoid permanent writer starvation,
> and that's basically all it does.
I just think that the design of the thing is ugly. It's clamped on to
the current elevator instead of redoing the core based on the principles
of read-starvation that it introduces (this is the only good thing that
has come out of the patch).
> So rather than just keeping on calling it a "hack" could you please
> describe what is actually wrong with the idea?
I've never said that the idea is wrong, it's the solution that is an
ugly hack.
-- 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 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:12 EST