[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090406235052.1ea47513.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:50:52 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
jack@...e.cz, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block_write_full_page: Use synchronous writes for
WBC_SYNC_ALL writebacks
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:21:41 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I mean, let's graph it:
>
> WRITE_SYNC -> WRITE_SYNC_PLUG -> BIO_RW_SYNCIO -> bio_sync() -> REQ_RW_SYNC -> rw_is_sync() -> does something mysterious in get_request()
> -> rq_is_sync() -> does something mysterious in IO schedulers
> -> BIO_RW_NOIDLE -> bio_noidle() -> REQ_NOIDLE -> rq_noidle() -> does something mysterious in cfq-iosched only
> -> BIO_RW_UNPLUG -> bio_unplug() -> REQ_UNPLUG -> OK, the cognoscenti know what this is supposed to do, but it is unused!
whoop, I found a use of bio_unplug() in __make_request().
So it appears that the intent of your patch is to cause an unplug after
submission of each WB_SYNC_ALL block?
But what about all the other stuff which WRITE_SYNC might or might not
do? What does WRITE_SYNC _actually_ do, and what are the actual
effects of this change??
And what effect will this large stream of unplugs have upon merging?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists