-------- In message <CANCZdfrQPSey1h+X_09GNJaeZqsZh6FmDXe6avO66qKEfAL=p...@mail.gmail.com>, Warner Losh writes:
>That would be strange given that BIO_ORDERED is @gibbs baby ? > >Nah... I wrote the iosched code... and I find the concept somewhat flawed >since it is at the disk level, not the partition level, so it winds up >interfering with mixed traffic. And it really only makes sense for writes, >but it affects reads. And it is a poor fit to Ata semantics, and not a lot >better for scsi. And for nvme it creates a bottleneck in hardware carefully >designed to be free of bottlenecks... Don't take my comment as an endorsement of BIO_ORDERED... I think ordering is strictly a consumer responsibility for exactly (and then some) of the reasons you mention. "End to end principle in systems design" and all that... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
