xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/9]: Reduce Log I/O latency

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9]: Reduce Log I/O latency
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:09:22 +1100
Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20071122222909.GY114266761@xxxxxxx>
References: <20071122003339.GH114266761__34694.2978365861$1195691722$gmane$org@xxxxxxx> <p73oddnhzoq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071122011214.GR114266761@xxxxxxx> <20071122025726.GG17536@xxxxxxxxx> <20071122034106.GV114266761@xxxxxxx> <20071122072549.GQ19691@xxxxxxxxx> <20071122103159.GW114266761@xxxxxxx> <20071122181029.GR19691@xxxxxxxxx> <20071122222909.GY114266761@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 09:29:09AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:10:29PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > If I've got XFS on filesystems A and B on the same spindle (or volume
> > group?) and my real RT I/O takes place only on B, then I want log
> > flushing to happen in RT on B. But -never on A-. If I can do this with
> > a tunable, I'm perfectly happy.
> 
> No, not another mount option. I'm just going to drop this one for
> now...

Actually, I might change it to use the highest non-rt priority, which
would solve the latency issues in the normal cases and still leave
the RT rope dangling for those that want to use it.

Is that an acceptible compromise, Matt?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>