[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b89bd2e5-ff8d-4e29-b082-9129284a51cb@xiaomi.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 02:52:36 +0000
From: 章辉 <zhanghui31@...omi.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC: "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>, "linux-block@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External Mail]Re: [PATCH v3] block: move non sync requests
complete flow to softirq
On 2024/9/4 12:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 11:49:28AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> The elephant in the room here is why an 80M completion takes 100 msec?
>> That seems... insane.
>>
>> That aside, doing writes that big isn't great for latencies in general,
>> even if they are orders of magnitude smaller (as they should be). Maybe
>> this is solvable by just limiting the write size here.
>>
>> But it really seems out of line for a write that size to take 100 msec
>> to process.
> pagecache state processing is quite inefficient, we had to limit
> the number of them for XFS to avoid latency problems a while ago.
> Note that moving to folios means you can process a lot more data
> with the same number of completion iterations as well. I'd suggest
> the submitter looks into that for whatever file system they are using.
>
hi Christoph,
The F2FS file system is used on the smartphone, and end_io uses page
traversal instead of folio traversal.
I will confirm the plan to migrate to folio. Thank you!
Thanks
Zhang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists