Linux LVM users
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
	miquels@cistron.nl, linux-lvm@sistina.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thornber@redhat.com
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 09:57:10 2004	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040220145717.GX27190@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040220144042.GC20917@traveler.cistron.net>

On Fri, Feb 20 2004, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > > Even if it isn't happening
> > > a lot, and something isn't bust it might be a good idea to
> > > do this.
> > 
> > Seems OK from a quick check.  pdflush will block in get_request_wait()
> > occasionally, but not at all often.  Perhaps we could move the
> > write_congested test into the mpage_writepages() inner loop but it hardly
> > seems worth the risk.
> > 
> > Maybe things are different on Miquel's clockwork controller.
> 
> I haven't tested it yet because of the "This patch isn't actually so good"
> comment, but I found another explanation.
> 
> >  drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c |    2 ++
> >  fs/fs-writeback.c         |    2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> *Lightbulb on* .. I just read fs-writeback.c. As I said, this happens
> with an LVM device. Could it be that because LVM and the actual device
> have different struct request_queue's things go awry ?
> 
> In fs-writeback.c, your're looking at the LVM device (and its
> request_queue, and its backing_dev_info). In__make_request, you're
> looking at the SCSI device.

In principle, the lvm/md queues themselves will never be congested. But
the underlying queues can be, of course.

Now this approach is _much_ better, imo. I don't particularly care very
much for how you solved it, though, I'd much rather just see both
setting and testing passed down (and kill the ->aux as well).

Regardless of the initial hw depth vs block depth (which is also a
generic device problem, not just dm related), this would be a good
addition to the congestion logic.

-- 
Jens Axboe

  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-02-20 14:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ 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
2004-02-19  8:51     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  8:50       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19  9:08         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  9:08           ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 10:23             ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 10:26               ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19 15:58                 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 17:52                   ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 18:52                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 19:15                       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 20:16                       ` [linux-lvm] [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 20:25                         ` [linux-lvm] " Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 20:40                           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 21:32                             ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-23  8:41                               ` [linux-lvm] [PATCH] bdi_congestion_funp (was: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests)) Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-20  9:56                                 ` [linux-lvm] " Joe Thornber
2004-02-20  9:59                                   ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-23  8:45                                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-22 14:55                                       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20  9:57                                 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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
2004-02-19  9:11           ` [linux-lvm] Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 10:26             ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19  8:51       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  9:00         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  9:00           ` Nick Piggin

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=20040220145717.GX27190@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox