[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161206213032.GC26314@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 16:30:32 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <htejun@...com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
tytso@....edu, jack@...e.com, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingbo@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: move IO scheduling accounting from
io_schedule_timeout() to __schedule()
Hello,
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 10:45:56AM -0600, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Tracking the owners of mutexes and rwsems does help quite a bit. I
> don't think it's as simple as inheriting io sleep state from the
> current owner tho. The owner might be running or in a non-IO sleep
> when others try to grab the mutex. It is an option to ignore those
> cases but this would have a real possibility to lead to surprising
> results in some corner cases. If we choose to propagate dynamically,
> it becomes an a lot more complex problem and I don't think it'd be
> justfiable.
>
> Unless there can be a simple enough and reliable solution, I think
> it'd be better to stick with explicit marking.
Just posted the fixed version for the first patch. Any more thoughts
on this?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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