[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090922190915.a472fb7c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:09:15 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"richard@....demon.co.uk" <richard@....demon.co.uk>,
"jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: regression in page writeback
On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:01:04 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > If there's still outstanding dirty data for any of those queues, both
> > wb_kupdate() and background_writeout() will take a teeny sleep and then
> > will re-poll the queues.
> >
> > Did that logic get broken?
>
> No, but the "teeny sleep" is normally much smaller. When io queue is
> not congested, every io completion event will wakeup the congestion
> waiters. Also A's event could wake up B's waiters.
>
> __freed_request() always calls blk_clear_queue_congested() if under
> congestion threshold which in turn wakes up congestion waiters:
>
> if (rl->count[sync] < queue_congestion_off_threshold(q))
> blk_clear_queue_congested(q, sync);
>
Yes. Have any problems been demonstrated due to that?
And what's _sufficiently_ wrong with that to justify adding potentially
thousands of kernel threads? It was always a design objective to avoid
doing that.
--
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