From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F33C4360F for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5612087E for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:02:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729204AbfCYSCY (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:02:24 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:59871 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729036AbfCYSCY (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:02:24 -0400 Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 543D368D0D; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:02:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 19:02:13 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Amir Goldstein Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" , Dave Chinner , linux-xfs , Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Long read latencies on mixed rw buffered IO Message-ID: <20190325180213.GA31766@lst.de> References: <20190325001044.GA23020@dastard> <20190325154731.GT1183@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 07:56:33PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > Sure, let's give that a shot. But allow me to stay skeptical, because > I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution. > If application doesn't need >4K atomicity and xfs imposes file-wide > read locks, there is bound to exist a workload where ext4 can guaranty > lower latencies than xfs. > > Then again, if we fix rw_semaphore to do a good enough job for my > workload, I may not care about those worst case workloads... Downgrading these long standing guarantees is simply not an option. Not quite sure what the I/O pattern of your workload is, but if it is reads from other regions than you write to you should look into implementing range locks.