Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264717AbTFLCvN (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2003 22:51:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264720AbTFLCvM (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2003 22:51:12 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-210-9-241-68.webone.com.au ([210.9.241.68]:43268 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264717AbTFLCvF (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2003 22:51:05 -0400 Message-ID: <3EE7EDBB.70608@cyberone.com.au> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:04:27 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030327 Debian/1.3-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrea Arcangeli CC: Chris Mason , Marc-Christian Petersen , Jens Axboe , Marcelo Tosatti , Georg Nikodym , lkml , Matthias Mueller Subject: Re: [PATCH] io stalls References: <1055353360.23697.235.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030611181217.GX26270@dualathlon.random> <1055356032.24111.240.camel@tiny.suse.com> <20030611183503.GY26270@dualathlon.random> <3EE7D1AA.30701@cyberone.com.au> <20030612012951.GG1500@dualathlon.random> <1055384547.24111.322.camel@tiny.suse.com> <3EE7E876.80808@cyberone.com.au> <20030612024608.GE1415@dualathlon.random> <3EE7EA4A.5030105@cyberone.com.au> <20030612025812.GF1415@dualathlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20030612025812.GF1415@dualathlon.random> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1556 Lines: 45 Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:49:46PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >>Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >> >>>it does nothing w/ _exclusive and w/o the wake_up_nr, that's why I added >>>the wake_up_nr. >>> >>> >>> >>That is pretty pointless as well. You might as well just start >>waking up at the queue full limit, and wake one at a time. >> >>The purpose for batch_requests was I think for devices with a >>very small request size, to reduce context switches. >> > >batch_requests at least in my tree matters only when each request is >512btyes and you've some thousand of them to compose a 4M queue or so. >To maximize cpu cache usage etc.. I try to wakeup a task every 512bytes >written, but every 32*512bytes written or so. Of course w/o the >wake_up_nr that I added, that wasn't really working w/ the _exlusive >wakeup. > >if you check my tree you'll see that for sequential I/O with 512k in >each request (not 512bytes!) batch_requests is already a noop. > You are waking up multiple tasks which will each submit 1 request. You want to be waking up 1 task which will submit multiple requests - that is how you will save context switches, cpu cache, etc, and that task's requests will have a much better chance of being merged, or at least serviced as a nice batch than unrelated tasks. - 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/