mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: RQ_NOIDLE enabled for SYNC_WORKLOAD
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 12:13:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100707161308.GA12991@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100707154631.GG2474@redhat.com>

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:46:31AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Whether to idle on WRITE_SYNC or not, I will leave it to Jens (I just
> don't know the answer to that question. :-)). But in general I want to
> get rid of idling as much as possible otherwise it becomes a serious
> bottleneck in any kind of performance testing on higher end storage.

After I've been thinking about this for a while I think the major
problems is that we use WRITE_SYNC for two very different I/O patterns.

One is synchronous data I/O (O_SYNC/O_DIRECT/fsync).  While this is a
high-level synchronous workload in the sense that someone waits for the
I/O to finish, the I/O can still be batched as we're doing relatively
large amounts of bios.

The other one is synchronous writeout of metadata or the journal.  Here
we typically wait on that single I/O we're just submitting (or at most a
handfull), and there is absolutely no point in idling.

We already have the REQ_NOIDLE flag to distinguish between the two, so
instead of second guessing we should actually make use of it.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-07-07 16:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-07-07 15:23 [PATCH 1/2] cfq-iosched: fix tree-wide handling of rq_noidle Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-07 15:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: RQ_NOIDLE enabled for SYNC_WORKLOAD Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-07 15:46   ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-07 15:52     ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-07 16:04     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-07 16:13     ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2010-07-07 17:12       ` Vivek Goyal
2010-07-07 15:55 [PATCH 1/2] cfq-iosched: fix tree-wide handling of rq_noidle Corrado Zoccolo
2010-07-07 15:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] cfq-iosched: RQ_NOIDLE enabled for SYNC_WORKLOAD Corrado Zoccolo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100707161308.GA12991@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=czoccolo@gmail.com \
    --cc=guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®