> The way you would do a good "goodness" function, I guess,
> would be to search through all requests on the device, and return
> the minimum distance from the request you are running the query
> on. Do this for both queues, and insert the request into the
> queue with the smallest delta. I don't see much else doing any
> good.
That would be perfect. And like you say in a later message, they're
in a tree so it might actually work. Then the read balance code
wouldn't need to do that calculation at all.
How hard would this be to add?
> On the other hand, if you simply have a fifo after the RAID
> scheduler, the RAID scheduler itself knows where each disk's
> head will end up simply by tracking the value of the last
> sector it has submitted to the device. It also has the advantage
> that it doesn't have "high level" scheduling stuff below it
> ie. request deadline handling, elevator scheme, etc.
>
> This gives the RAID scheduler more information, without
> taking any away from the high level scheduler AFAIKS.
But then wouldn't you have to put all that into the RAID
scheduler?
-- Chuck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:18 EST