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.
next prev 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®