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: Sat, 2 May 2015 21:52:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150503015230.GG1949@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVMZWdxAPjL+QEjJDU-dyUcUmRbJicOXjGmw0S4ixpfnjA@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On Sat, May 02, 2015 at 10:56:20PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Maybe just cap max_active to NR_OF_LOOP_DEVS * 16 or sth? But idk,
>
> It might not work because there are nested loop devices like fedora live CD, and
> in theory the max_active should have been set as loop's queue depth *
> nr_loop, otherwise there may be possibility of hanging.
>
> So this patch is introduced.
If loop devices can be stacked, regardless of what you do with
nr_active, it may deadlock. There needs to be a rescuer per each
nesting level (or just one per device). This means that the current
code is broken.
> > 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?
>
> I think there should be performance advantage to make queue depth a bit more
> because it can help to make queue pipeline as full. Also queue depth often
> means how many requests the hardware can queue, and it is a bit different
> with per-queue concurrency.
I'm not really following. Can you please elaborate?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-03 1:52 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
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 [this message]
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=20150503015230.GG1949@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