All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Joe Thornber <thornber@redhat.com>
Cc: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
	miquels@cistron.nl, linux-lvm@sistina.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: [PATCH] bdi_congestion_funp (was: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests))
Date: Fri Feb 20 09:59:20 2004	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040220150013.GY27190@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040220145944.GM27549@reti>

On Fri, Feb 20 2004, Joe Thornber wrote:
> > +	devices = dm_table_get_devices(t);
> > +	for (d = devices->next; d != devices; d = d->next) {
> > +		struct dm_dev *dd = list_entry(d, struct dm_dev, list);
> > +		request_queue_t *q = bdev_get_queue(dd->bdev);
> > +		r |= test_bit(bdi_state, &(q->backing_dev_info.state));
> 
> Shouldn't this be calling your bdi_*_congested function rather than
> assuming it is a real device under dm ? (often not true).
> 
> I'm also very slightly worried that or'ing together the congestion
> results for all the seperate devices isn't always the right thing.
> These devices include anything that the targets are using, exception
> stores for snapshots, logs for mirror, all paths for multipath (or'ing
> is most likely to be wrong for multipath).

Yeah the patch is pretty much crap in that area, I don't think Miquel
was aiming for inclusion :)

I'd suggest making queue functions for congestion state as well so it
stacks properly.

-- 
Jens Axboe

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Joe Thornber <thornber@redhat.com>
Cc: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
	miquels@cistron.nl, linux-lvm@sistina.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bdi_congestion_funp (was: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests))
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:00:13 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040220150013.GY27190@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040220145944.GM27549@reti>

On Fri, Feb 20 2004, Joe Thornber wrote:
> > +	devices = dm_table_get_devices(t);
> > +	for (d = devices->next; d != devices; d = d->next) {
> > +		struct dm_dev *dd = list_entry(d, struct dm_dev, list);
> > +		request_queue_t *q = bdev_get_queue(dd->bdev);
> > +		r |= test_bit(bdi_state, &(q->backing_dev_info.state));
> 
> Shouldn't this be calling your bdi_*_congested function rather than
> assuming it is a real device under dm ? (often not true).
> 
> I'm also very slightly worried that or'ing together the congestion
> results for all the seperate devices isn't always the right thing.
> These devices include anything that the targets are using, exception
> stores for snapshots, logs for mirror, all paths for multipath (or'ing
> is most likely to be wrong for multipath).

Yeah the patch is pretty much crap in that area, I don't think Miquel
was aiming for inclusion :)

I'd suggest making queue functions for congestion state as well so it
stacks properly.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2004-02-20 15:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-02-16  9:11 [linux-lvm] IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-16  8:30 ` [linux-lvm] " Jens Axboe
2004-02-16  9:01   ` Joe Thornber
2004-02-16 19:32   ` Kevin P. Fleming
2004-02-17  1:46   ` Kevin P. Fleming
2004-02-18 10:29   ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-18 23:52     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  8:51       ` [linux-lvm] " Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  1:24       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  8:51         ` [linux-lvm] " Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  1:52         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  9:00           ` [linux-lvm] " Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  2:01           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  9:00             ` [linux-lvm] " Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  1:26       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19  8:50         ` [linux-lvm] " Andrew Morton
2004-02-19  2:11         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  9:08           ` [linux-lvm] " Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  2:26           ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19  9:08             ` [linux-lvm] " Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 10:15             ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 10:23               ` [linux-lvm] " Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 10:19               ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19 10:26                 ` [linux-lvm] " Jens Axboe
2004-02-19 15:58                 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 20:59                   ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 17:52                   ` [linux-lvm] " Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 22:52                     ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 18:52                     ` [linux-lvm] " Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 23:53                       ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 19:15                       ` [linux-lvm] " Nick Piggin
2004-02-20  0:15                         ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 20:16                       ` [linux-lvm] [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-20  1:12                         ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 20:25                         ` [linux-lvm] " Andrew Morton
2004-02-20  1:26                           ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 20:40                           ` [linux-lvm] " Nick Piggin
2004-02-20  1:40                             ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 21:32                             ` [linux-lvm] " Andrew Morton
2004-02-20  2:32                               ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20 14:40                               ` [PATCH] bdi_congestion_funp (was: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests)) Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-23  8:41                                 ` [linux-lvm] " Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-20  9:56                                 ` [linux-lvm] " Joe Thornber
2004-02-20 14:59                                   ` Joe Thornber
2004-02-20  9:59                                   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2004-02-20 15:00                                     ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-22 14:02                                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-23  8:45                                       ` [linux-lvm] " Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-22 14:55                                       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-22 19:55                                         ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20  9:57                                 ` [linux-lvm] " Jens Axboe
2004-02-20 14:57                                   ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-24 12:54                                   ` [linux-lvm] Queue congestion: passing down vs passing up [PATCH] Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 20:52                         ` [linux-lvm] Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-20  1:45                           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  2:51           ` IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  9:11             ` [linux-lvm] " Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 10:21             ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19 10:26               ` [linux-lvm] " Jens Axboe

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=20040220150013.GY27190@suse.de \
    --to=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-lvm@sistina.com \
    --cc=miquels@cistron.net \
    --cc=miquels@cistron.nl \
    --cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
    --cc=thornber@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.