From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
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 15:08:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49iq5c6w6a.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C1FB66B.1030203@kernel.dk> (Jens Axboe's message of "Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:58:51 +0200")
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
> On 21/06/10 20.52, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:
>>
>>> On 2010-06-21 11:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> Now how do we use these flags in the block layer?
>>>>
>>>> - REQ_META
>>>>
>>>> The only place where we ever use this flag is inside the
>>>> cfq scheduler. In cfq_choose_req we use it to give a meta
>>>> request priority over one that doesn't have it. But before
>>>> that we already do the same preference check with rw_is_sync,
>>>> which evaluates to true for requests with that are either
>>>> reads or have REQ_SYNC set. So for reads the REQ_META flag
>>>> here effectively is a no-op, and for writes it gives less
>>>> priority than REQ_SYNC.
>>>> In addition to that we use it to account for pending metadata
>>>> requests in cfq_rq_enqueued/cfq_remove_request which gets
>>>> checked in cfq_should_preempt to give priority to a meta
>>>> request if the other queue doesn't have any pending meta
>>>> requests. But again this priority comes after a similar
>>>> check for sync requests that checks if the other queue has
>>>> been marked to have sync requests pending.
>>>
>>> It's also annotation for blktrace, so you can tell which parts of the IO
>>> is meta data etc. The scheduler impact is questionable, I doubt it makes
>>> a whole lot of difference.
>>
>> Really? Even after I showed the performance impact of setting that bit
>> for journal I/O?
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/1/344
>
> It's definitely a win in some cases, as you showed there as well.
> My initial testing a long time ago had some nice benefits too. So
> perhaps the above wasn't worded very well, I always worry that we
> have regressions doing boosts for things like that. But given that
> meta data is something that needs to be done before we get to the
> real data, bumping priority generally seems like a good thing to do.
Oh, I'm not arguing for that approach. I just wanted to make it clear
that it can and does have a noticible impact.
Cheers,
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-21 19:08 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
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 [this message]
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=x49iq5c6w6a.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=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).