![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:41:18AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:14:03AM -0700, Suresh B wrote: > > Yes, softirq context is one way. But just didn't want to penalize the running > > task by taking away some of its cpu time. With CFS micro accounting, perhaps > > we can track irq, softirq time and avoid penalizing the running task's cpu > > time. > > But you "penalize" the running task in the completion handler as well > anyway. Yes. Ingo, in general with CFS micro accounting, we should be able to avoid penalizing the running task by tracking irq/softirq time. Isn't it? > Doing this with a SCHED_FIFO task is sort of like doing interrupt > threading which AFAIK has not been accepted (yet). I am not recommending SCHED_FIFO. I will take a look at softirq infrastructure for this. > > This workload is using direct IO and there is no batching at the block layer > > for direct IO. IO is submitted to the HW as it arrives. > > So you aren't putting concurrent requests into the queue? Sounds like > userspace should be improved. Nick remember that there are hundreds of disks in this setup and at an instance, there will be max 1 or 2 requests per disk. > > It is applicable for both direct IO and buffered IO. But the implementations > > will differ. For example in buffered IO, we can setup in such a way that the > > block plug timeout function runs on the IO completion cpu. > > It would be nice to be doing that anyway. But unplug via request submission > rather than timeout is fairly common in buffered loads too. Ok. Currently the patch handles both direct and buffered IO. While making improvements to this patch I will make sure that both the paths take advantage of this. thanks, suresh - 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: 2007-08-01 03:03 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||