From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>, Tao Ma <tm@tao.ma>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFQ: async queue blocks the whole system
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 05:29:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110610092922.GE4183@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DF1E1EB.8010808@kernel.dk>
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:20:43AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-06-10 11:17, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:19:12AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >>> If there is no major advantage of draining sync requests before async
> >>> is dispatched, I think this should be an easy fix.
> >> I thought this is to avoid sync latency if we switch from an async
> >> queue to sync queue later.
> >
> > Is it about the sync request latency which has already been dispatched? I
> > really wish that driver and disk should do some prioritazation for reads
> > here and CFQ does not have to jump through hoops like drain sync requests
> > before async requests are dispatched.
>
> That would never work. Are you suggesting putting that logic in all
> drivers? Or relying on hardware to get the fairness right? Not going to
> happen.
I was hoping that hardware does some prioritization. Well, in this case
even if hardware maintains FIFO behavior it should be good enough.
But I would not claim anything in this regard as I have never experimented
with it and have no idea that how sync latencies are impacted if we don't
drain the queue before dispathing WRITEs.
I was just wondering that with current generation hardware is it bad
enough that we need to keep this logic around?
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-10 9:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-09 10:49 CFQ: async queue blocks the whole system Tao Ma
2011-06-09 14:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-09 14:34 ` Jens Axboe
2011-06-09 14:47 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-09 15:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-09 15:44 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-09 18:27 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-10 5:48 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-10 9:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-10 10:00 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-10 15:44 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-11 7:24 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-13 10:08 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-13 21:41 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-14 7:03 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-14 13:30 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-14 15:42 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-14 21:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-17 3:04 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-17 12:50 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-17 14:34 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-10 1:19 ` Shaohua Li
2011-06-10 1:34 ` Shaohua Li
2011-06-10 2:06 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-10 2:35 ` Shaohua Li
2011-06-10 3:02 ` Tao Ma
2011-06-10 9:20 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-10 9:21 ` Jens Axboe
2011-06-13 1:03 ` Shaohua Li
2011-06-10 9:17 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-06-10 9:20 ` Jens Axboe
2011-06-10 9:29 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-06-10 9:31 ` Jens Axboe
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=20110610092922.GE4183@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=tm@tao.ma \
/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