From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752169Ab1AXTbq (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:31:46 -0500 Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([64.244.102.30]:38901 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750892Ab1AXTbp (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:31:45 -0500 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1295897504-01de290b79f76e0001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4D3DD39C.9000208@fusionio.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:31:40 +0100 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Moyer CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "hch@infradead.org" , Shaohua Li Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] fs: make aio plug References: <1295659049-2688-1-git-send-email-jaxboe@fusionio.com> <1295659049-2688-11-git-send-email-jaxboe@fusionio.com> <4D3DCE5D.9090708@fusionio.com> <4D3DD184.4040700@fusionio.com> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [PATCH 10/10] fs: make aio plug In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1295897504 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.180:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.5000 1.0000 0.0000 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.53329 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2011-01-24 20:29, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Jens Axboe writes: > >> On 2011-01-24 20:15, Jeff Moyer wrote: >>> Jens Axboe writes: >>> >>>>>> @@ -1698,6 +1701,7 @@ long do_io_submit(aio_context_t ctx_id, long nr, >>>>>> if (ret) >>>>>> break; >>>>>> } >>>>>> + blk_finish_plug(&plug); >>>>>> aio_batch_free(batch_hash); >>>>> >>>>> I'm pretty sure you want blk_finish_plug to run after aio_batch_free. >>>> >>>> You mean to cover the iput()? That's not a bad idea, if that ends up >>>> writing it out. I did a few read tests here and confirmed it's sending >>>> down batches of whatever number is submitted. >>> >>> No, I actually didn't make it all the way through 5/10, so I didn't >>> realize you got rid of the blk_run_address_space. I agree with the TODO >>> item to get rid of the aio batching, since it's now taken care of with >>> the on-stack plugging. >> >> Oh, so that was the whole point of the series :-) > > I've said dumber things, I'm sure. =) ;-) >>> As for the iput, I don't think you will get the final iput here, since >>> you've just scheduled I/O against the file. >> >> Good point, so the original comment is moot - it wont make a difference. >> Still, may not be a bad idea to do the freeing first. I was sort-of >> hoping to be able to kill the batching in fs/aio.c completely, though... > > Yes, that's what I meant above when I said I agreed with the TODO item. > Go ahead and nuke it. Will do, if you promise to help test it :-) -- Jens Axboe