[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 09:59:58 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Justin M. Forbes" <jforbes@...oraproject.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"v4.0" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: loop: avoiding too many pending per work I/O
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 07:49:55PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
...
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index 3dc1598..1bee523 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -725,7 +725,7 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode,
> goto out_putf;
> error = -ENOMEM;
> lo->wq = alloc_workqueue("kloopd%d",
> - WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND, 0,
> + WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND, 16,
It's a bit weird to hard code this to 16 as this effectively becomes a
hidden bottleneck for concurrency. For cases where 16 isn't a good
value, hunting down what's going on can be painful as it's not visible
anywhere. I still think the right knob to control concurrency is
nr_requests for the loop device. You said that for linear IOs, it's
better to have higher nr_requests than concurrency but can you
elaborate why?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists