lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix mapping->writeback_index to point to the last written page
On 03/03/11 23:08, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 03-03-11 21:31:19, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:26:19AM +0800, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
>> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899962 + 8
>> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899970 + 8
>> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899978 + 8
>> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899986 + 8
>> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899994 + 8
>> ==> > kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94899962 + 40
>> > >> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898554 + 8
>> ==> > >> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898554 + 8
>>
>> I'd expect the wrapped around 94898554+8 to be merged with 94899962+8.
> How could they be merged? They are not continguous...
>
>> Why kworker/0:1-11 is submitting the request early? And the second
>> request is submitted by flush-8:0-2743.
> I'm not sure about that either - but I think that kworker is submitting
> the work when unplug happens while flush ends up doing it when the queue is
> alredy unplugged.

Yes. For the above case, it was unplug.

For other cases, the reason was max_sectors.
Before writeback wraps around, the request has already grown to
max_sectors size (~512KB) and doesn't accept new merge.

Thanks,
--
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-04 02:49    [W:0.032 / U:0.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site