From: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>
Organization: suse.de
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: avoid using queue_delayed_work in aio_kick_handler to schedule itself
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:21:38 +0530
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.51 (KDE/4.0.4; ; )
Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>, Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com>
References: <200806260927.27995.knikanth@suse.de> <x49prq3t43a.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> <200806301120.27743.knikanth@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <200806301120.27743.knikanth@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200807011421.38532.knikanth@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1149
Lines: 27

On Monday 30 June 2008 11:20:27 Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> On Friday 27 June 2008 18:41:37 Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de> writes:
> > > Avoid using queue_delayed_work in aio_kick_handler() to run itself
> > > immediately. Instead use aio_run_all_iocbs()
> >
> > Can you give some rationale for this change?  Also, how did you test it?
>
> The comment in aio_kick_handler(), "we're in a worker thread already, don't
> use queue_delayed_work" triggered me to do this. Ran multiple instances
> of Stephen Hemminger's aio cp for basic testing.
>
> I think this would make it unfair between different kioctx? May be only the
> comment should be removed?
>

Anyway we are scheduling it again with timeout of 0, so fairness shouldnt be a 
problem? If yes, wouldn't this change reduce the overhead of queuing the work 
again, and repeated lock/unlock.

Thanks
Nikanth Karthikesan
--
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/