On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:01:53 +0200
Reinoud Zandijk <reinoud@netbsd.org> wrote:
> The syncfs syncer uses a different set of lists but yes, it too has the 
> same problem with the lists.

I've never looked at the code, but I would have thought that
there would be some sort of block-sorting/elevator-algorithm step
in between "this list of blocks need to go to disk" and "disk
drive: seek to xyz; write blocks nnn to nnn+m".  Isn't there?

If there is, then this reversal probably doesn't matter much, if
all it does is pessimize an in-memory sort.

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew