linux-kernel - Re: block device queues, elevatoring implicit or explicit?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130405141738.GB21852@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:17:38 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Raymond Jennings <shentino@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: block device queues, elevatoring implicit or explicit?

On Sat 16-03-13 02:06:00, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> Are all block devices fundamentally elevators or fifos or what?
> 
> To be blunt, if a bunch of concurrent processes dump requests on a
> noop queue, are they serviced fifo or in elevator order or what?
> 
> My goal is to get a dumb elevator that does nothing but sweep up and
> down the disk mopping up outstanding requests as the disk heads ooze
> across the sectors.
  With noop io scheduler you get the FIFO ordering of requests.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/