All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	jack@suse.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block_write_full_page: Use synchronous writes for WBC_SYNC_ALL writebacks
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:08:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090407070835.GM5178@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090406235052.1ea47513.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Mon, Apr 06 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:21:41 -0700 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > I mean, let's graph it:
> > 
> > WRITE_SYNC -> WRITE_SYNC_PLUG -> BIO_RW_SYNCIO -> bio_sync() -> REQ_RW_SYNC -> rw_is_sync() -> does something mysterious in get_request()
> >                                                                             -> rq_is_sync() -> does something mysterious in IO schedulers
> >                               -> BIO_RW_NOIDLE -> bio_noidle() -> REQ_NOIDLE -> rq_noidle() -> does something mysterious in cfq-iosched only
> >            -> BIO_RW_UNPLUG   -> bio_unplug() -> REQ_UNPLUG -> OK, the cognoscenti know what this is supposed to do, but it is unused!
> 
> whoop, I found a use of bio_unplug() in __make_request().
> 
> So it appears that the intent of your patch is to cause an unplug after
> submission of each WB_SYNC_ALL block?
> 
> But what about all the other stuff which WRITE_SYNC might or might not
> do?  What does WRITE_SYNC _actually_ do, and what are the actual
> effects of this change??
> 
> And what effect will this large stream of unplugs have upon merging?

It looks like a good candidate for WRITE_SYNC_PLUG instead, since it
does more than one buffer submission before waiting. It likely wont mean
a whole lot since we'll usually only have a single buffer on that page,
but for < PAGE_CACHE_SIZE block sizes it could easily make a big
difference (4 ios instead of 1!).

So on the write side, basically we have:

WRITE                   Normal async write.
WRITE_SYNC_PLUG         Sync write, someone will wait on this so don't
                        treat it as background activity. This is a hint
                        to the io schedulers. This one does NOT unplug
                        the queue, either the caller should do it after
                        submission, or he should make sure that the
                        wait_on_* callbacks do it for him.
WRITE_SYNC              Like WRITE_SYNC_PLUG, but causes immediate
                        unplug of the queue after submission. Most
                        uses of this should likely use WRITE_SYNC_PLUG,
                        at least in the normal IO path.
WRITE_ODIRECT           Like WRITE_SYNC, but also passes a hint to the
                        IO scheduler that we should expect more IO.
                        This is similar to how a read is treated in the
                        scheduler, it'll enable anticipation/idling.

Ditto for the SWRITE* variants, which are special hacks for
ll_rw_block() only.

I have killed REQ_UNPLUG, it doesn't make sense to pass the further down
than to __make_request(), so the bio flag is enough.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-07  7:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-27 20:24 [PATCH 0/3] Ext3 latency improvement patches Theodore Ts'o
2009-03-27 20:24 ` [PATCH 1/3] block_write_full_page: Use synchronous writes for WBC_SYNC_ALL writebacks Theodore Ts'o
2009-03-27 20:24   ` [PATCH 2/3] ext3: Use WRITE_SYNC for commits which are caused by fsync() Theodore Ts'o
2009-03-27 20:24     ` [PATCH 3/3] ext3: Avoid starting a transaction in writepage when not necessary Theodore Ts'o
2009-03-27 22:23       ` Jan Kara
2009-03-27 23:03         ` Theodore Tso
2009-03-30 13:22           ` Jan Kara
2009-03-30 13:22             ` Jan Kara
2009-03-27 22:20     ` [PATCH 2/3] ext3: Use WRITE_SYNC for commits which are caused by fsync() Jan Kara
2009-03-27 20:55   ` [PATCH 1/3] block_write_full_page: Use synchronous writes for WBC_SYNC_ALL writebacks Jan Kara
2009-04-07  6:21   ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-07  6:50     ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-07  6:50       ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-07  7:08       ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-04-07  7:17         ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-07  8:16           ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-07  7:23         ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-07  7:57           ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-07 19:09             ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-07 19:32               ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-07 21:44                 ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-07 22:19                   ` [PATCH] block_write_full_page: switch synchronous writes to use WRITE_SYNC_PLUG Theodore Tso
2009-04-07 22:19                     ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-07 23:09                     ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-07 23:46                       ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-08  8:08                       ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-08 22:34                         ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-09 17:59                           ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-08  6:00                     ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-08 15:26                       ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-08  5:58                   ` [PATCH 1/3] block_write_full_page: Use synchronous writes for WBC_SYNC_ALL writebacks Jens Axboe
2009-04-08 15:25                     ` Theodore Tso
2009-04-07 14:19           ` Theodore Tso
2009-03-27 20:50 ` [PATCH 0/3] Ext3 latency improvement patches Chris Mason
2009-03-27 21:03   ` Chris Mason
2009-03-27 21:19     ` Jan Kara
2009-03-27 21:30     ` Theodore Tso
2009-03-27 21:54       ` Jan Kara
2009-03-27 21:54         ` Jan Kara
2009-03-27 23:09         ` Theodore Tso
2009-03-28  0:14           ` Jeff Garzik
2009-03-28  0:14             ` Jeff Garzik
2009-03-28  0:24             ` David Rees
2009-03-28  0:24               ` David Rees
2009-03-30 14:16               ` Ric Wheeler
2009-03-30 11:23       ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-03-30 11:44         ` Chris Mason
2009-03-30 11:23       ` Aneesh Kumar K.V

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=20090407070835.GM5178@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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.