[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150503015230.GG1949@htj.duckdns.org>
Date: Sat, 2 May 2015 21:52:30 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Justin M. Forbes" <jforbes@...oraproject.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, "v4.0" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] block: loop: avoiding too many pending per work I/O
Hello,
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 10:56:20PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Maybe just cap max_active to NR_OF_LOOP_DEVS * 16 or sth? But idk,
>
> It might not work because there are nested loop devices like fedora live CD, and
> in theory the max_active should have been set as loop's queue depth *
> nr_loop, otherwise there may be possibility of hanging.
>
> So this patch is introduced.
If loop devices can be stacked, regardless of what you do with
nr_active, it may deadlock. There needs to be a rescuer per each
nesting level (or just one per device). This means that the current
code is broken.
> > how many concurrent workers are we talking about and why are we
> > capping per-queue concurrency from worker pool side instead of command
> > tag side?
>
> I think there should be performance advantage to make queue depth a bit more
> because it can help to make queue pipeline as full. Also queue depth often
> means how many requests the hardware can queue, and it is a bit different
> with per-queue concurrency.
I'm not really following. Can you please elaborate?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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