![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Neil Brown wrote: > On Tuesday May 30, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au wrote: > >>Nick Piggin wrote: >> >>For workloads where plugging helps (ie. lots of smaller, contiguous >>requests going into the IO layer), the request pattern should be >>pretty good without plugging these days, due to multiple page >>readahead and writeback. > > > Can I please put in a vote for not thinking that every device is disk > drive? > > I find plugging fairly important for raid5, particularly for write. > > The more whole-stripe writes I can get, the better throughput I get. > So I tend to keep a raid5 array plugged while any requests are > arriving, and interpret 'plugged' to mean that incomplete stripes > don't get processed while full stripes (needing no pre-reading) do get > processed. > > The only way "large requests" are going to replace plugging is they > are perfectly aligned, which I don't expect to ever see. Fair enough, thanks for the input. I was more imagining that IO tends to come down in decent chunks, but obviously that's still not sufficient for some. OK. > > As for your original problem.... I wonder if PG_locked is protecting > too much? It protects against IO and it also protects against ->mapping > changes. So if you want to ensure that ->mapping won't change, you > need to wait for any pending read request to finish, which seems a bit > dumb. I don't think that is the problem. set_page_dirty_lock is really unlikely to get held up on read IO: that'd mean there were two things writing into that page at the same time. > > Maybe we need a new bit: PG_maplocked. You are only allowed to change > ->mapping or ->index of you hold PG_locked and PG_maplocked, you are > not allowed to wait for PG_locked while holding PG_maplocked, and > you can read ->mapping or ->index while PG_locked or PG_maplocked are > held. > Think of PG_locked like a mutex and PG_maplocked like a spinlock (and > probably use bit_spinlock to get it). Well the original problem is fixed by not doing the sync_page thing in set_page_dirty_lock. Is there any advantage to having another bit? Considering a) it will be very unlikely that a page is locked at the same time one would like to dirty it; and b) that would seem to imply adding extra atomic ops and barriers to reclaim and truncate (maybe others). > > Then set_page_dirty_lock would use PG_maplocked to get access to > ->mapping, and then hold a reference on the address_space while > calling into balance_dirty_pages ... I wonder how you hold a reference > on an address space... inode. Presumably PG_maplocked would pin it? I don't understand why you've brought balance_dirty_pages into it, though. > > There are presumably few pieces of code that change ->mapping. Once > they all take PG_maplocked as well as PG_locked, you can start freeing > up other code to take PG_maplocked instead of PG_locked.... > > Does that make sense at all? Do we have any spare page bits? I'm sure it could be made to work, but I don't really see the point. If someone really wanted to do it, I guess the right way to go is have a PG_readin counterpart to PG_writeback (or even extend PG_writeback to PG_io)... -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-05-30 09:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||