From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264978AbUELFcY (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2004 01:32:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264979AbUELFcY (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2004 01:32:24 -0400 Received: from fmr04.intel.com ([143.183.121.6]:30870 "EHLO caduceus.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264978AbUELFcW (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2004 01:32:22 -0400 Message-Id: <200405120532.i4C5WCF25908@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Jens Axboe'" Cc: "'Andrew Morton'" , Subject: RE: Cache queue_congestion_on/off_threshold Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:32:11 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcQ2m1knKuI+GyGUQ/2vuwEjqRbhuwBRVpWg In-Reply-To: <20040510143024.GF14403@suse.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>> Jens Axboe wrote on Monday, May 10, 2004 7:30 AM > > > > > > Actually, with the good working batching we might get away with killing > > > freereq completely. Have you tested that (if not, could you?) > > > > Sorry, I'm clueless on "good working batching". If you could please give > > me some pointers, I will definitely test it. > > Something like this. > > --- linux-2.6.6/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~ 2004-05-10 16:23:45.684726955 +0200 > +++ linux-2.6.6/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2004-05-10 16:29:04.333792268 +0200 > @@ -2138,8 +2138,8 @@ > > static int __make_request(request_queue_t *q, struct bio *bio) > { > - struct request *req, *freereq = NULL; > int el_ret, rw, nr_sectors, cur_nr_sectors, barrier, ra; > + struct request *req; > sector_t sector; > > > [snip] ... I'm still working on this. With this patch, several processes stuck in "D" state and never finish. Suspect it's the barrier thing, it jumps through blk_plug_device() and might goof up the queue afterwards. - Ken