Andrew Morton writes:
[...]
>
> In this very common scenario, the only way we'll ever get "lumps" of reads is
> if some other processes come in and happen to want to read nearby sectors.
Or if you have read-ahead for meta-data, which is quite useful. Isn't
read ahead targeting the same problem as this anticipatory scheduling?
> In the best case, the size of the lump is proportional to the number of
> processes which are concurrently trying to read something. This just doesn't
> happen enough to be significant or interesting.
>
> But writes are completely different. There is no dependency between them and
> at any point in time we know where on-disk a lot of writes will be placed.
> We don't know that for reads, which is why we need to twiddle thumbs until the
> application or filesystem makes up its mind.
>
Nikita.
-
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