| 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 |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/9]: Reduce Log I/O latency, David Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 2/9]: Reduce Log I/O latency, Matt Mackall |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/9]: Reduce Log I/O latency, David Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 2/9]: Reduce Log I/O latency, Matt Mackall |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |