From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Werner Almesberger Subject: Re: barriers vs. reads Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:53:08 -0300 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040622155308.G1325@almesberger.net> References: <20040622005302.A1325@almesberger.net> <20040622073919.GV12881@suse.de> <20040622045004.C1325@almesberger.net> <20040622075531.GX12881@suse.de> <20040622112802.GA21456@mail.shareable.org> <20040622113245.GA1104@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jamie Lokier , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from almesberger.net ([63.105.73.238]:35596 "EHLO host.almesberger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265226AbUFVSxV (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:53:21 -0400 To: Jens Axboe Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040622113245.GA1104@suse.de>; from axboe@suse.de on Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 01:32:45PM +0200 List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Jens Axboe wrote: > It can happen with direct io of any sort, the solution has to take this > into account. That's why we currently have handling for rbtree aliases > as well. How well is this actually supposed to work ? When reading what as-iosched does, I was left with the impression that you could construct a set of partially overlapping requests that doesn't get sorted in FIFO order. I haven't tried to feed as-iosched such a request mix, though, so maybe I'm wrong. (For partially overlapping requests, it may actually be nice to be able to break them into multiple parts, and queue them separately. Particularly if they also come with distinct priorities.) - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/