[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110329141853.GA23949@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:18:53 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: block: eliminate ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE
On Tue, Mar 29 2011 at 7:56am -0400,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> On 2011-03-29 00:15, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 28 2011 at 4:23am -0400,
> > Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:21:56AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>> Should blk_kick_flush() process the flush request without calling
> >>> elv_insert() -- like is done with open coded list_add() in
> >>> blk_insert_flush()?
> >>>
> >>> Or should blk_insert_flush() use elv_insert() with
> >>> ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE too?
> >>
> >> Hmmm... I would prefer the latter. Given that INSERT_REQUEUE and
> >> FRONT are no longer different, it would probably be better to use
> >> FRONT tho. The only reason REQUEUE is used there is to avoid kicking
> >> the queue from elv_insert(), which is gone now.
> >
> > OK, I came up with the following patch.
> >
> > Jens, this is just a natural cleanup given the code that resulted from
> > the flush-merge and onstack plugging changes coming together.
>
> That looks nice and clean. What kind of testing has been done?
I successfully tested it with that fsync-heavy ffsb workload (xfs on
mpath device).
Mike
--
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