Subject: Re: Disk scheduling policy (Re: NEW_BUFQ_STRATEGY)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 12/01/2003 17:00:23
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Dec 1, 2003, at 4:56 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> Unfortunately, this requires modifying every disk driver to handle
> uber-bufs instead of bufs, no? It's highly similar to the change
> that BSDI made long ago to chain buffers together through a pointer
> in struct buf -- we could have whacked pagemove() much earlier if
> we picked up that change, but we didn't because of the changes it
> would have required in all of the disk drivers.
Yes, it would require a change to disk controller drivers (not disk
drivers; they enqueue/dequeue, but don't really "process" the bufs).
But is that really so horrible?
See what I said about adding a bus_dmamap_load_buf(); we could add this
API call, and then such drivers would automatically pick up additional
enhancements to the buf data representation mechanism.
-- Jason R. Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----