| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue |
| From: | Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:23:57 -0400 |
| Cc: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20120327170309.GA6712@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1332841605-3538-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120327143127.GA11434@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120327155759.GB28707@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120327160300.GA22555@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120327161941.GC28707@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120327170309.GA6712@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 01:03:09PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:19:41PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > So xfs either need to resort to similar optimizaiton where IO type from
> > both the process context is of same type or try to do all the IO from
> > one process context.
>
> All XFS log I/O is marked SYNC and (FUA and/or FLUSH).
Well, if all the requests are marked with FUA/FLUSH, then I think these
requests will not even be given to IO scheduler. And we should not have
the issue of idling.
if (bio->bi_rw & (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA)) {
spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
where = ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH;
goto get_rq;
}
Thanks
Vivek
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Vivek Goyal |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Vivek Goyal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |