[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Status of the IO scheduler fixes for 2.4
On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 20:05, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 05:37:35PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > I've also attached a patch I've been working on to solve the latencies a
> > different way. bdflush-progress.diff changes balance_dirty to wait on
> > bdflush instead of trying to start io. It helps a lot here (both
> > throughput and latency) but hasn't yet been tested on a box with tons of
> > drives.
> that's orthogonal, it changes the write throttling, it doesn't touch the
> blkdev layer like the other patches does. So if it helps it solves a
> different kind of latencies.

It's also almost useless without elevator-low-latency applied ;-) One
major source of our latencies is a bunch of procs hammering on
__get_request_wait, so bdflush-progess helps by reducing the number of
procs doing io. It does push some of the latency problem up higher into
balance_dirty, but I believe it is easier to manage there.

bdflush-progress doesn't help at all for non-async workloads.

> However the implementation in theory can run the box oom, since it won't
> limit the dirty buffers anymore. To be safe you need to wait 2
> generations. I doubt in practice it would be easily reproducible though ;).

Hmmm, I think the critical part here is to write some buffers after
marking a buffer dirty. We don't check the generation number until
after marking the buffer dirty, so if the generation has incremented at
all we've made progress. What am I missing?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.104 / U:0.560 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site