[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091116183613.GG27677@think>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:36:13 -0500
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
To: Milan Broz <mbroz@...hat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Sven Geggus <lists@...hsschwanzdomain.de>,
Karol Lewandowski <karol.k.lewandowski@...il.com>,
Tobias Oetiker <tobi@...iker.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Reduce GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures, candidate
fix V3
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 05:44:07PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 11/13/2009 03:46 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 05:00:05PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> > [ ...]
> >
> >>
> >> The punch line is that the btrfs guy thinks we can solve all of this with
> >> just one more thread. If we change dm-crypt to have a thread dedicated
> >> to sync IO and a thread dedicated to async IO the system should smooth
> >> out.
>
> Please, can you cc DM maintainers with these kind of patches? dm-devel list at least.
>
Well, my current patch is a hack. If I had come up with a proven theory
(hopefully Mel can prove it ;), it definitely would have gone through
the dm-devel lists.
> Note that the crypt requests can be already processed synchronously or asynchronously,
> depending on used crypto module (async it is in the case of some hw acceleration).
>
> Adding another queue make the situation more complicated and because the crypt
> requests can be queued in crypto layer I am not sure that this solution will help
> in this situation at all.
> (Try to run that with AES-NI acceleration for example.)
The problem is that async threads still imply a kind of ordering.
If there's a fifo serviced by one thread or 10, the latency ramifications
are very similar for a new entry on the list. We have to wait for a
large portion of the low-prio items in order to service a high prio
item.
With a queue dedicated to sync requests and one dedicated to async,
you'll get better read latencies. Btrfs has a similar problem around
the crc helper threads and it ends up solving things with two different
lists (high and low prio) processed by one thread.
-chris
--
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