linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH]cfq-iosched: don't stop async queue with async requests pending

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100113111005.GA3087@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jan 2010 06:10:05 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Cc:	jens.axboe@...cle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	jmoyer@...hat.com, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]cfq-iosched: don't stop async queue with async requests
	pending

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 03:44:42PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> My SSD speed of direct write is about 80m/s, while I test page writeback,
> the speed can only go to 68m/s. Below patch fixes this.
> It appears we missused cfq_should_idle in cfq_may_dispatch. cfq_should_idle
> means a queue should idle because it's seekless sync queue or it's the last queue,
> which is to maintain service tree time slice. So it doesn't mean the
> last queue is always a sync queue. If the last queue is asyn queue,
> we definitely shouldn't stop dispatch requests because of pending async
> requests.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
> 
> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> index 918c7fd..8198079 100644
> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -2222,7 +2222,8 @@ static bool cfq_may_dispatch(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
>  	/*
>  	 * Drain async requests before we start sync IO
>  	 */
> -	if (cfq_should_idle(cfqd, cfqq) && cfqd->rq_in_driver[BLK_RW_ASYNC])
> +	if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq) && cfq_should_idle(cfqd, cfqq)
> +		&& cfqd->rq_in_driver[BLK_RW_ASYNC])
>  		return false;

So are we driving queue depth as 1 when pure buffered writes are going on?
Because in that case service_tree->count=1 and cfq_should_idle() will
return 1 and looks like we will not dispatch next write till previous
write is over?

A general question. Why do we need to drain async requests before we start
sync IO? How does that help?

A related question, even if we have to do that, why do we check for
cfq_should_idle()? Why can't we just do following.

	if (cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq) && cfqd->rq_in_driver[BLK_RW_ASYNC])

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/