Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: (reiserfs) Re: More on 2.2.18pre2aa2 | Date | Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:23:00 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> Yes, but "how hard is it reasonable for the kernel to try" is based on > both items. A good first order approximation is number of requests.
I must strongly disagree with that claim. A request could be 512 bytes or 128K.
> It's still a queue - the queue of things we're going to take on this > elevator swipe, right? And the problem is one of keeping a sane > watermark on this queue - not too many requests to destroy latency > but enough to let the elevator do some good.
Yes. OK I agree there. If you want an efficiency bound then you need to consider that.
> > Im talking about flow control/traffic shaping > > ...where the user sets a number exlpicitly for what performance they > want. Again, if we're going to make the user set this latency
No they do not. The parameters are defined by the bandwidth and measured behaviour.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |