Re: elevator code in kernel

From: Jens Axboe (axboe@suse.de)
Date: Mon May 01 2000 - 20:13:45 EST


On Mon, May 01 2000, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> > Is it necessary for the elevator sorting code to be hard-coded into the
> > kernel?
>
> Not necessary, but highly desirable.

It is highly desirable to have the sorting _hard coded_?

> > Elevator sorting offers little or no benefit to higher performance I./O
> > devices - An
> > extreme example would be RAID controllers that have on card memory that
> > can do
> > reordering more intelligently themselves.
>
> True, but only if the memory survives a reboot. However, even in
> these situations, the elevator serves a useful purpose --- it allows
> us to merge adjacent IO requests together in the queue, letting us
> reduce the number of hardware IOs we generate. That is still good
> for performance, as it reduces the CPU cost of the driver and may
> allow for significantly faster throughput between memory and the
> IO adapter.

But there's a difference between merging adjacent request,
which IMHO we should always do (for the reason you state) and forcing
a sort of a new request into the existing list.

-- 
*  Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
*  Linux CD/DVD-ROM, SuSE Labs
*  http://kernel.dk

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:09 EST