Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:35:03 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
       Marc-Christian Petersen <m.c.p@wolk-project.de>,
       Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>,
       Georg Nikodym <georgn@somanetworks.com>,
       lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Matthias Mueller <matthias.mueller@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io stalls (was: -rc7   Re: Linux 2.4.21-rc6)
Message-ID: <20030611183503.GY26270@dualathlon.random>
References: <3EDDDEBB.4080209@cyberone.com.au> <1055194762.23130.370.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030611003356.GN26270@dualathlon.random> <1055292839.24111.180.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030611010628.GO26270@dualathlon.random> <1055296630.23697.195.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030611021030.GQ26270@dualathlon.random> <1055353360.23697.235.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030611181217.GX26270@dualathlon.random> <1055356032.24111.240.camel@tiny.suse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1055356032.24111.240.camel@tiny.suse.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1569
Lines: 39

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:27:13PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 14:12, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:42:41PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > +		if (q->rq[rw].count >= q->batch_requests) {
> > > +			smp_mb();
> > > +			if (waitqueue_active(&q->wait_for_requests[rw]))
> > > +				wake_up(&q->wait_for_requests[rw]);
> > 
> > in my tree I also changed this to:
> > 
> > 				wake_up_nr(&q->wait_for_requests[rw], q->rq[rw].count);
> > 
> > otherwise only one waiter will eat the requests, while multiple waiters
> > can eat requests in parallel instead because we freed not just 1 request
> > but many of them.
> 
> I tried a few variations of this yesterday and they all led to horrible
> latencies, but I couldn't really explain why.  I had a bunch of other

the I/O latency in theory shouldn't change, we're not reordering the
queue at all, they'll go to sleep immediatly again if __get_request
returns null.

> stuff in at the time to try and improve throughput though, so I'll try
> it again.
> 
> I think part of the problem is the cascading wakeups from
> get_request_wait_wakeup().  So if we wakeup 32 procs they in turn wakeup
> another 32, etc.

so maybe it's enough to wakeup count / 2 to account for the double
wakeup? that will avoid some overscheduling indeed.

Andrea
-
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/