From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Werner Almesberger Subject: Re: barriers vs. reads Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:48:45 -0300 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040623214845.A21586@almesberger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from almesberger.net ([63.105.73.238]:62993 "EHLO host.almesberger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263309AbUFXAsz (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jun 2004 20:48:55 -0400 Received: from almesberger.net (vpnwa-home [10.200.0.2]) by host.almesberger.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id i5O0mq411107 for ; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 17:48:53 -0700 Received: (from werner@localhost) by almesberger.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i5O0mjl21591 for linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:48:45 -0300 To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org BTW, regarding overlapping requests, I wonder if there's a data structure that gives O(log requests) or such lookups for ranges. The best I could spontaneously think of would be O(new_request_size*log(requests*avg_request_size)) which isn't pretty. BTW2, is O_DIRECT actually a Linux-only thing, or is there some ancestor whose semantics we may want to preserve ? I've had a quick look at POSIX, but they don't seem to have direct IO. - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/