From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3E316421.5070905@cyberone.com.au> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 18:09:42 +0100 (CET) From: Giuliano Pochini Subject: Re: 2.5.59-mm5 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@alex.org.uk, Alex Tomas , Andrew Morton , Oliver Xymoron List-ID: >>An alternate approach might be to change the way the scheduler splits >>things. That is, rather than marking I/O read vs write and scheduling >>based on that, add a flag bit to mark them all sync vs async since >>that's the distinction we actually care about. The normal paths can >>all do read+sync and write+async, but you can now do things like >>marking your truncate writes sync and readahead async. > That will be worth investigating to see if the complexity is worth it. > I think from a disk point of view, we still want to split batches between > reads and writes. Could be wrong. Yes, sync vs async is a better way to classify io requests than read vs write and it's more correct from OS point of view. IMHO it's not more complex then now. Just replace r/w with sy/as and it will work. Bye. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/