[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1KlQ9s-0003Oh-Cz@be1.7eggert.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:32:04 +0200
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02 2008, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:55:11AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> > Good point. I think we should mark the IO as sync, and maintain the same
>> > priority level. Any IO that ends up being waited on is sync by
>> > definition, we just need to expand the coverage a bit.
>>
>> That's what XFS has always done - mark the journal I/O as sync.
>> Still, once you load up the elevator, the sync I/O can still get
>> delayed for hundreds of milliseconds before dispatch, which was
>> why I started looking at boosting the priority of the log I/O.
>> It proved to be much more effective at getting the log I/O
>> dispatched than the existing "mark it sync" technique....
>
> Sure, just marking it as sync is not a magic bullet. It'll be in the
> first priority for that class, but it'll share bandwidth with other
> processes. So if you have lots of IO going on, it can take hundreds of
> miliseconds before being dispatched.
Sounds like you need a priority class besides sync and async.
--
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