[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1y44l2qhr.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 21:16:16 -0400
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: Eric Wheeler <bcache@...ts.ewheeler.net>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: To add, or not to add, a bio REQ_ROTATIONAL flag
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Wheeler <bcache@...ts.ewheeler.net> writes:
Eric,
Eric> However, just because FADV_SEQUENTIAL is flagged doesn't mean the
Eric> cache should bypass. Filesystems can fragment, and while the file
Eric> being read may be read sequentially, the blocks on which it
Eric> resides may not be. Same thing for higher-level block devices
Eric> such as dm-thinp where one might sequentially read a thin volume
Eric> but its _tdata might not be in linear order. This may imply that
Eric> we need a new way to flag cache bypass from userspace that is
Eric> neither io-priority nor fadvise driven.
Why conflate the two? Something being a background task is orthogonal to
whether it is being read sequentially or not.
Eric> So what are our options? What might be the best way to do this?
For the SCSI I/O hints I use the idle I/O priority to classify
backups. Works fine.
Eric> Are FADV_NOREUSE/FADV_DONTNEED reasonable candidates?
FADV_DONTNEED was intended for this. There have been patches posted in
the past that tied the loop between the fadvise flags and the bio. I
would like to see those revived.
Eric> Perhaps ionice could be used used, but the concept of "priority"
Eric> doesn't exactly encompass the concept of cache-bypass---so is
Eric> something else needed?
The idle class explicitly does not have a priority.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
Powered by blists - more mailing lists