| To: | Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:03:00 -0400 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20120327155759.GB28707@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1332841605-3538-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120327143127.GA11434@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120327155759.GB28707@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:31:27AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Vivek, does CFQ still need any hints for this sort of handoff? > > > > Christoph, I don't understand the issue enough to comment on it. > > Had a quick look at the patch. Looks like some action (writing log), has > been moved to a worker thread. And in some cases (log force triggered > flush, whatever it is), we seem to prefer to do it from the submitter's > context. Yes. This is to workaround the old problem of cfq getting utterly confused if cooperating I/O beeing submitted from different threads. The case in the previous version of this patch was: - thread doing the fsync will write out data, and wait for it - then we'd force the log by kicking a workqueue and waiting for it quite similar to the ext3/4 fsync issues that we had long discussions about. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Vivek Goyal |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [ANNOUNCE] XFS Developers meeting in San Francisco, April 3rd, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Vivek Goyal |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: Do background CIL flushes via a workqueue, Vivek Goyal |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |