[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D52938C.30907@fusionio.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:15:56 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To: Justin TerAvest <teravest@...gle.com>
CC: "vgoyal@...hat.com" <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
"ctalbott@...gle.com" <ctalbott@...gle.com>,
"mrubin@...gle.com" <mrubin@...gle.com>,
"jmoyer@...hat.com" <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
"guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com" <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't wait if queue already has requests.
On 2011-02-08 20:18, Justin TerAvest wrote:
> Commit 7667aa0630407bc07dc38dcc79d29cc0a65553c1 added logic to wait for
> the last queue of the group to become busy (have at least one request),
> so that the group does not lose out for not being continuously
> backlogged. The commit did not check for the condition that the last
> queue already has some requests. As a result, if the queue already has
> requests, wait_busy is set. Later on, cfq_select_queue() checks the
> flag, and decides that since the queue has a request now and wait_busy
> is set, the queue is expired. This results in early expiration of the
> queue.
>
> This patch fixes the problem by adding a check to see if queue already
> has requests. If it does, wait_busy is not set. As a result, time slices
> do not expire early.
>
> The queues with more than one request are usually buffered writers.
> Testing shows improvement in isolation between buffered writers.
Thanks for catching this in due time, I'll queue it up for 2.6.38 and
mark it for stable backport.
--
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