[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130801020101.GB12580@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:01:01 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
neilb@...e.de, djbw@...com
Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] raid5: offload stripe handle to workqueue
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:33:32AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 09:24:34AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > stripe is the work unit actually. As I said, if I queue a work for each stripe,
> > just queue_work() will make the system blast because of the pwq->pool->lock
> > contention. dispatching one work has another side effect that I can't add block
>
> Hmmm.... I see. I'm not familiar with the code base and could be
> missing something but how does the custom stripe dispatch queue
> synchronize? Doesn't that make use of a lock anyway? If so, how
> would scheduling separate work items be worse?
It does have lock, but when a stripe is queued to handle, no lock is required.
So the workqueue lock will be high contended.
> Also, can you please
> elaborate the block plug part?
Basically I do:
blk_start_plug()
handle_stripe() //may dispatch request
blk_end_plug()
If only handle one stripe between block plug, the plug is useless, so I need
handle several stripes.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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