[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E021297.4000505@fusionio.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:04:39 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] sched, block: Move unplug
On 2011-06-22 17:08, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 04:38:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 16:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> It is supposedly a real problem, not just an inkling. It's not about
>>>> recursing indefinitely, the plug is fairly bounded. But the IO dispatch
>>>> path can be pretty deep, and if you hit that deep inside the reclaim or
>>>> file system write path, then you get dangerously close. Dave Chinner
>>>> posted some numbers in the 2.6.39-rc1 time frame showing how close we
>>>> got.
>>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>
>>> Ok. So we move it out and keep the from_scheduler flag so that code
>>> does not go down the IO path from there.
>>
>> Won't punting the plug to a worker thread wreck all kinds of io
>> accounting due to the wrong task doing the actual io submission?
>
> I think all the accounting will the done in IO submission path and
> while IO is added to plug. This is just plug flush so should not
> have effect on accounting.
Exactly, this is just the insert operation, so no worries there. The
request are fully "formulated".
--
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