lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 21/32] fs/aio: aio_wq isn't used in memory reclaim path
Date
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 09:50:57AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> > Yeap. Do you agree that the concurrency limit is necessary? If not,
>> > we can just put everything onto system_wq.
>>
>> I'm not sure whether it's strictly necessary (there may very well be a
>> need for this in the usb gadgetfs code), but keeping it the same at
>> least seems safe.
>
> Limiting concurrency on aio requests is exactly the opposite of what the
> usb gadgetfs requires.

I'll have to dig on what their requirements are. After briefly looking
at mailing list archives, it appears they use the aio workqueue to queue
work after a completed I/O. I think Zach actually had posted a patch to
change them over to using their own workqueue for that. At any rate, it
may well be that they don't have a concurrency requirement (in fact, it
would be surprising if they did). However, I wasn't going to propose
changing the way things were done w/o someone chiming in and saying they
needed it.

> It's similarly bad for filesystem aio when there's a mix of small and
> large requests in flight.

Well, the aio workqueue isn't actually used by the filesystem aio paths
at all (except for the fput_work, and that's being moved to the system
workqueue).

Cheers,
Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-05 16:51    [W:0.156 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site