Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 06 Sep 2003 11:34:35 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix IO hangs |
| |
Martin Schlemmer wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 19:04, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>On Fri, Sep 05 2003, Jens Axboe wrote: >> >>>>Jens, if insert_here is dead, there is no point to passing back a hint >>>>because it can't get back to the elevator anyway. >>>> >>>>I'd very much like to kill insert_here and be done with it. If another >>>>io scheduler comes along with a good use for it then the writers can >>>>come up with an elegant solution ;) Hey, if they know a NO_MERGE return >>>>means an insert will soon happen under the same lock, they could keep >>>>it cached privately. >>>> >>>Agree, lets just kill it off. >>> >>Here's the patch that kills it and its associated logic off completely. >>Nick, I'm not too sure what the logic was for stopping anticipation in >>as_insert_request() (the insert_here tests were somewhat convoluted :), >>I've added what I think makes most sense: stop anticipating if someone >>puts a request at the head of the dispatch list. >> >>It also makes the *_insert_request strategies much easier to follow, >>imo. >> >> > >Hmm, do not know if its just me, but I just got two processes (cp's) >in D state. They did complete though, but throughput was not good. >Any tips on getting it debugged ? >
If they complete at all, then its very unlikely for them to be slowed down (AS can do this a bit though). If you could get a comparison with my patch that started the problems backed out it might tell me something. Thanks.
- 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/
| |