linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: trying to understand READ_META, READ_SYNC, WRITE_SYNC & co
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:16:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C1FBA91.3040601@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100621191410.GA24213@lst.de>

On 21/06/10 21.14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 08:56:55PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> FWIW, Windows marks meta data writes and they go out with FUA set
>> on SATA disks. And SATA firmware prioritizes FUA writes, it's essentially
>> a priority bit as well as a platter access bit. So at least we have some
>> one else using a meta data boost. I agree that it would be a lot more
>> trivial to add the annotations if they didn't have scheduler impact
>> as well, but I still think it's a sane thing.
> 
> And we still disable the FUA bit in libata unless people set a
> non-standard module option..

Yes, but that's a separate thing. The point is that boosting meta data
IO is done by others as well. That we don't fully do the same on the
hw side is a different story. That doesn't mean that the io scheduler
boost isn't useful.

>>>> Reads are sync by nature in the block layer, so they don't get that
>>>> special annotation.
>>>
>>> Well, we do give them this special annotation in a few places, but we
>>> don't actually use it.
>>
>> For unplugging?
> 
> We use the explicit unplugging, yes - but READ_META also includes
> REQ_SYNC which is not used anywhere.

That does look superfluous.

>>> But that leaves the question why disabling the idling logical for
>>> data integrity ->writepage is fine?  This gets called from ->fsync
>>> or O_SYNC writes and will have the same impact as O_DIRECT writes.
>>
>> We have never enabled idling for those. O_SYNC should get a nice
>> boost too, it just needs to be benchmarked and tested and then
>> there would be no reason not to add it.
> 
> We've only started using any kind of sync tag last year in ->writepage in
> commit a64c8610bd3b753c6aff58f51c04cdf0ae478c18 "block_write_full_page:
> Use synchronous writes for WBC_SYNC_ALL writebacks", switching from
> WRITE_SYNC to WRITE_SYNC_PLUG a bit later in commit
> 6e34eeddf7deec1444bbddab533f03f520d8458c "block_write_full_page: switch
> synchronous writes to use WRITE_SYNC_PLUG"
> 
> Before that we used plain WRITE, which had the normal idling logic.

Plain write does not idle.

-- 
Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-21 19:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-21  9:48 trying to understand READ_META, READ_SYNC, WRITE_SYNC & co Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-21 10:04 ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-21 11:04   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-21 18:56     ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-21 19:14       ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-21 19:16         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2010-06-21 19:20           ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-21 21:36         ` Vivek Goyal
2010-06-23 10:01           ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-24  1:44             ` Vivek Goyal
2010-06-25 11:03               ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-26  3:35                 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-06-26 10:05                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-26 11:20                     ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-26 11:56                       ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-27 15:44                   ` Jeff Moyer
2010-06-29  9:06                     ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-06-29 12:30                       ` Vivek Goyal
2010-06-30 15:30                         ` Corrado Zoccolo
2010-06-26  9:25                 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-26  9:27                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-26 10:10                     ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-26 10:16                       ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-21 18:52   ` Jeff Moyer
2010-06-21 18:58     ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-21 19:08       ` Jeff Moyer
2010-06-23  9:26       ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-21 20:25   ` Vivek Goyal
2010-06-23 10:02     ` Christoph Hellwig

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=4C1FBA91.3040601@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).