[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091209190506.GY8742@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:05:07 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: reduce write depth only if sync was
delayed
On Wed, Dec 09 2009, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> writes:
>
> > Hi Jeff,
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >> Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> The introduction of ramp-up formula for async queue depths has
> >>> slowed down dirty page reclaim, by reducing async write performance.
> >>> This patch makes sure the formula kicks in only when sync request
> >>> was recently delayed.
> >>> @@ -3706,7 +3707,7 @@ static void *cfq_init_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> >>> cfqd->cfq_latency = 1;
> >>> cfqd->cfq_group_isolation = 0;
> >>> cfqd->hw_tag = -1;
> >>> - cfqd->last_end_sync_rq = jiffies;
> >>> + cfqd->last_delayed_sync = jiffies - HZ;
> >>
> >> So, umm, what's that about?
> >
> > Previously, when cfq started, it started in a state where writes were
> > completely throttled. Now, we optimistically prefer to start with a
> > reasonable max depth (10)
>
> OK. Can we put a comment in there and change the initialization to
> cfq_slice_sync * 10?
Agree, that would be MUCH easier to understand.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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