From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Justin M. Forbes" <jforbes@fedoraproject.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, "v4.0" <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] block: loop: avoiding too many pending per work I/O
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 10:22:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150501142221.GC1949@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVPhL2neE+9OsGbHdsdzejpYm+11=vJbidBUa6+Bq3Drvg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 09:36:47PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 11:28:01AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> If there are too many pending per work I/O, too many
> >> high priority work thread can be generated so that
> >> system performance can be effected.
Hmmm... why is it even marked HIGHPRI? The commit doesn't seem to
explain why. Also, I wonder whether this would be better served by
unbound workqueues. These tasks are mostly like to walk all the way
through the filesystem and block layer. That can be quite a bit of
processing for concurrency managed per-cpu workqueues and may
effectively block out other work items which actually need to be
HIGHPRI.
> >> This patch limits the max pending per work I/O as 16,
> >> and will fackback to single queue mode when the max
> >> number is reached.
> >
> > Why would you do this fall back? Shouldn't we just communicate
> > a concurrency limit to the workqueue code?
>
> It can't work with workqueue's concurrency limit because the
> queue is shared by all loop block devices, and the limit is on the
> whole queue.
Maybe just cap max_active to NR_OF_LOOP_DEVS * 16 or sth? But idk,
how many concurrent workers are we talking about and why are we
capping per-queue concurrency from worker pool side instead of command
tag side?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-01 14:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-01 3:28 [PATCH v6] block: loop: avoiding too many pending per work I/O Ming Lei
2015-05-01 10:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-05-01 13:36 ` Ming Lei
2015-05-01 14:22 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2015-05-01 15:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-05-01 15:47 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-02 15:09 ` Ming Lei
2015-05-02 14:56 ` Ming Lei
2015-05-03 1:52 ` Tejun Heo
2015-05-04 12:54 ` Ming Lei
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=20150501142221.GC1949@htj.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jforbes@fedoraproject.org \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
--cc=stable@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