From: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
Cc: "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
"James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com"
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Perfromance drop on SCSI hard disk
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 08:22:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1305850920.22968.1089.camel@debian> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DD56104.6080801@fusionio.com>
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 02:27 +0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-05-19 10:26, Alex,Shi wrote:
> >
> >> I will queue up the combined patch, it looks fine from here as well.
> >>
> >
> > When I have some time to study Jens and shaohua's patch today. I find a
> > simpler way to resolved the re-enter issue on starved_list. Following
> > Jens' idea, we can just put the starved_list device into kblockd if it
> > come from __scsi_queue_insert().
> > It can resolve the re-enter issue and recover performance totally, and
> > need not a work_struct in every scsi_device. The logic/code also looks a
> > bit simpler.
> > What's your opinion of this?
>
> Isn't this _identical_ to my original patch, with the added async run of
> the queue passed in (which is important, an oversight)?
Not exactly same. It bases on your patch, but added a bypass way for
starved_list device. If a starved_list device come from
__scsi_queue_insert(), that may caused by our talking recursion, kblockd
with take over the process. Maybe you oversight this point in original
patch. :)
The different part from yours is below:
---
static void __scsi_run_queue(struct request_queue *q, bool async)
{
struct scsi_device *sdev = q->queuedata;
struct Scsi_Host *shost;
@@ -435,30 +437,35 @@ static void scsi_run_queue(struct request_queue
*q)
&shost->starved_list);
continue;
}
-
- spin_unlock(shost->host_lock);
- spin_lock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
- __blk_run_queue(sdev->request_queue);
- spin_unlock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
- spin_lock(shost->host_lock);
+ if (async)
+ blk_run_queue_async(sdev->request_queue);
+ else {
+ spin_unlock(shost->host_lock);
+ spin_lock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
+ __blk_run_queue(sdev->request_queue);
+ spin_unlock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
+ spin_lock(shost->host_lock);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-20 0:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-10 6:40 Perfromance drop on SCSI hard disk Alex,Shi
2011-05-10 6:52 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-12 0:36 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-12 20:29 ` Jens Axboe
2011-05-13 0:11 ` Alex,Shi
2011-05-13 0:48 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-13 3:01 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-16 8:04 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-16 8:37 ` Alex,Shi
2011-05-17 6:09 ` Alex,Shi
2011-05-17 7:20 ` Jens Axboe
2011-05-19 8:26 ` Alex,Shi
2011-05-19 8:47 ` Alex,Shi
2011-05-19 18:27 ` Jens Axboe
2011-05-20 0:22 ` Alex,Shi [this message]
2011-05-20 0:40 ` Shaohua Li
2011-05-20 5:17 ` Alex,Shi
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=1305850920.22968.1089.camel@debian \
--to=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.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