Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754132AbaLAS7j (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:59:39 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:33334 "EHLO mail-pd0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753310AbaLAS7i (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:59:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 10:59:34 -0800 From: Shaohua Li To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: don't use rw_is_sync() to determine sync request Message-ID: <20141201185934.GA52328@kernel.org> References: <4f327fd4f830a3fceab3694cdd7621c37f780809.1417391999.git.shli@kernel.org> <547BC5CF.7080904@fb.com> <20141201035712.GA8443@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141201035712.GA8443@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 07:57:12PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 06:35:11PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 11/30/2014 05:01 PM, Shaohua Li wrote: > > >Buffer read is counted as sync in rw_is_sync(). If we use it, > > >blk_sq_make_request() will not do per-process plug any more. > > > > > >I haven't changed blk_mq_make_request() yet. It makes sense to dispatch > > >REQ_SYNC request immediately. But for buffer read, it's weird not to do > > >per-process plug, as buffer read doesn't need low latency. > > >blk_mq_merge_queue_io() isn't very helpful, as we don't have delay mechanism > > >there, the queue is immediately flushed, which makes the merge very > > >superficial. > > > > A read is sync, buffered or not. A buffered read is every bit as > > latency sensitive as an O_DIRECT read. I think it'd be fine to > > modify rw_is_sync() to disregard REQ_AHEAD as sync (and ensure it's > > carried forward in the request flags, too). At least to the extent > > that we process plug and get the merging, since for streamed reads > > we'd soon be waiting on them anyway. > > A quick search shows nobody uses REQ_AHEAD. For stream reads, only first several > reads are waited I suppose, later reads are read ahead. Maybe only counts > REQ_META read as sync? Changing rw_is_sync() sounds risky, as it will change behavior of other parts, like CFQ. REQ_META/REQ_PRIO isn't an option, metadata does readahead too. And nobody uses REQ_AHEAD. explictly checking REQ_SYNC in blk_sq_make_request() sounds better, which is just for pluging and we use it for ages in blk_queue_bio(). -Shaohua -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/