From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [DO NOT APPLY] sd take advantage of rotation speed Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:20:15 -0600 Message-ID: <20080625172015.GR4392@parisc-linux.org> References: <20080619160342.GJ4392@parisc-linux.org> <20080625134705.GZ20851@kernel.dk> <4862552A.5010900@gmail.com> <48627184.9010609@panasas.com> <20080625165759.GC20851@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:53533 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751067AbYFYRUc (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:20:32 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080625165759.GC20851@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: Boaz Harrosh , Ric Wheeler , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 06:57:59PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > Precisely, merging and fairness is a big part of it. Plus, doing this in > sd is just a blatant layer violation. I'm fine with tweaking the elevators to know about low-latency seeks. But please stop describing it as "a blatant layering violation". It's nothing of the sort. It's setting a default at a point where we find out the information which would guide us. I haven't looked into doing this in udev yet; I've got caught up in another project. In any case, it seems like there's no role for udev any more, so I'll probably not spend any more time on this unless there's some need. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."