It's not the merging that I worry about. It's latency and starvation.
Think of it this way: if you keep feeding a disk requests, and the disk
always tries to do the closest one (which is a likely algorithm), you can
easily have a situation where the disk _never_ actually schedules a
request that is at one "end" of the platter.
Think of all the fairness issues we've had in the elevator code, and
realize that the low-level disk probably implements _none_ of those
fairness algorithms.
> As long as the io scheduler keeps track of this (and it does!) we are
> golden.
Hmm.. Where does it keep track of request latency for requests that have
been removed from the queue?
Linus
-
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/