lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH][RF C/T/D] Unmapped page cache control - via boot parameter
On 03/16/2010 11:54 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
>
>> Is this with qcow2, raw file, or direct volume access?
>>
>> I can understand it for qcow2, but for direct volume access this
>> shouldn't happen. The guest schedules as many writes as it can,
>> followed by a sync. The host (and disk) can then reschedule them
>> whether they are in the writeback cache or in the block layer, and must
>> sync in the same way once completed.
>>
>> Perhaps what we need is bdrv_aio_submit() which can take a number of
>> requests. For direct volume access, this allows easier reordering
>> (io_submit() should plug the queues before it starts processing and
>> unplug them when done, though I don't see the code for this?). For
>> qcow2, we can coalesce metadata updates for multiple requests into one
>> RMW (for example, a sequential write split into multiple 64K-256K write
>> requests).
>>
> We already do merge sequential writes back into one larger request. So
> this is in fact a case that wouldn't benefit from such changes.

I'm not happy with that. It increases overall latency. With qcow2 it's
fine, but I'd let requests to raw volumes flow unaltered.

> It may
> help for other cases. But even if it did, coalescing metadata writes in
> qcow2 sounds like a good way to mess up, so I'd stay with doing it only
> for the data itself.
>

I don't see why.

> Apart from that, wouldn't your points apply to writeback as well?
>

They do, but for writeback the host kernel already does all the
coalescing/merging/blah for us.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-16 11:19    [W:0.137 / U:31.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site