Re: stochastic fair queueing in the elevator [Re: [BENCHMARK] 2.4.20-ck3 / aa / rmap with contest]

From: Rik van Riel (
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 23:15:10 EST

On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:

> The only aspect of the anticipatory scheduler that is no longer needed
> with your SFQ idea is the distinction between reads and writes, since
> your idea already makes the (better, I guess) distinction between
> synchronous and asynchronous requests.

Forget that I said that, we don't have the infrastructure to
get this right. The definition of "synchronous" is "some
process is waiting on this request to complete", but processes
wait on other objects instead.

A normal sequence (probably the most common) is:

1) submit request
   (request is now asynchronous)
2) wait_on_page
   (request should now magically become synchronous)

The infrastructure to get this working is probably too big a
change for 2.5/2.6, at this point, so chances are that we're
better off using the (90% accurate?) distinction between reads
and writes.



Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:""></a>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 22:00:25 EST