Re: io_request_lock patch?

Mike Anderson
2001-07-11T16:03:33Z

Sorry for the slow fingers just trying to catch up on this thread.

Dipankar Sarma [dipankar@sequent.com] wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 04:05:12PM -0700, Mike Anderson wrote:
> > The call to do_aic7xxx_isr appears that you are running the aic7xxx_old.c
> > code. This driver is using the io_request_lock to protect internal data.
> > The newer aic driver has its own lock. This is related to previous
> > comments by Jens and Eric about lower level use of this lock.
>
> There were some problems booting with the new aic7xxx driver and 2.4.4
> kernel. This may have been fixed in later kernels, so we will check
> this again. Besides, I wasn't aware that the new aic7xxx driver uses
> a different locking model. Thanks for letting me know.
>
> >
> > I would like to know why the request_freelist is going empty? Having
> > __get_request_wait being called alot would appear to be not optimal.
>
> It is not unreasonable for request IOCB pools to go empty, the important
> issue is at what rate ? If a large portion of I/Os have to wait for
> request structures to be freed, we may not be able to utilize the available
> hardware bandwidth of the system optimally when we need, say, large
> # of IOs/Sec. On the other hand, having large number of request structures
> available may not necessarily give you large IOs/sec. The thing to look
> at would be - how well are we utilizing the queueing capablility
> of the hardware given a particular type of workload.

Jens, I think Dipankar might have stated my comment about questioning
optimal utilization of a pool of resources shared by all device queues in
the last sentence of the above paragraph.

My thought was that if one has enough IO that cannot be merged on a queue
you eat up request descriptors. If a request queue contains more requests
than can be put in flight by the lower level to a spindle than this
resource might be better used by other request queues.

I might be missing something and I will look at the code some more.

Thanks.

>
> Thanks
> Dipankar
> --
> Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@sequent.com> Project: http://lse.sourceforge.net
> Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
Michael Anderson
mike.anderson@us.ibm.com