Believe it or not, but this is intentional. In that regard, the
function name is a misnomer -- call it i/o scheduler instead :-)
The current settings in test11 cause this behaviour, because the
starting request sequence numbers are a 'bit' too high.
I'd be very interested if you could repeat your test with my
block patch applied. It has, among other things, a more fair (and
faster) insertion.
*.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/axboe/patches/2.4.0-test11/blk-11.bz2
> [...] Additionally, it may be better to add extra priority to reads
> than writes to obtain better response, but this patch doesn't.
READs do have bigger priority, they start out with lower sequence
numbers than WRITEs do:
latency = elevator_request_latency(elevator, rw);
With my patch, READ sequence start is now 8192. WRITEs are twice
that.
-- * Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> * SuSE Labs - 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/