[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 12:13:08 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: RQ_NOIDLE enabled for SYNC_WORKLOAD
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:46:31AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Whether to idle on WRITE_SYNC or not, I will leave it to Jens (I just
> don't know the answer to that question. :-)). But in general I want to
> get rid of idling as much as possible otherwise it becomes a serious
> bottleneck in any kind of performance testing on higher end storage.
After I've been thinking about this for a while I think the major
problems is that we use WRITE_SYNC for two very different I/O patterns.
One is synchronous data I/O (O_SYNC/O_DIRECT/fsync). While this is a
high-level synchronous workload in the sense that someone waits for the
I/O to finish, the I/O can still be batched as we're doing relatively
large amounts of bios.
The other one is synchronous writeout of metadata or the journal. Here
we typically wait on that single I/O we're just submitting (or at most a
handfull), and there is absolutely no point in idling.
We already have the REQ_NOIDLE flag to distinguish between the two, so
instead of second guessing we should actually make use of it.
--
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