On Wed, Jan 24 2007, Chris Frost wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:13:06PM +1100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > noop doesn't guarentee that IO will be queued with the device in the
> > order in which they are submitted, and it definitely doesn't guarentee
> > that the device will process them in the orde
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 01:13:06PM +1100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> noop doesn't guarentee that IO will be queued with the device in the
> order in which they are submitted, and it definitely doesn't guarentee
> that the device will process them in the order in which they are
> dispatched. noop being FIF
On Jan 18 2007 13:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>noop doesn't guarentee that IO will be queued with the device in the
>order in which they are submitted, and it definitely doesn't guarentee
>that the device will process them in the order in which they are
>dispatched. noop being FIFO basically means th
On Wed, Jan 17 2007, Chris Frost wrote:
> We are working on a kernel module which uses the linux block device
> interface as part of a larger project, are seeing unexpected block
> write behavior from our usage of the noop scheduler, and were
> wondering whether anyone might have feedback on what t
4 matches
Mail list logo
