Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753330AbYJBIWl (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 04:22:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752533AbYJBIWd (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 04:22:33 -0400 Received: from pasmtpa.tele.dk ([80.160.77.114]:50864 "EHLO pasmtpA.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752323AbYJBIWc (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 04:22:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:22:13 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrew Morton Cc: Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority Message-ID: <20081002082212.GY19428@kernel.dk> References: <20081001200034.65eb67d6@infradead.org> <20081001215638.3a65134c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081002062736.GR19428@kernel.dk> <20081001235501.2b7f50fe.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20081002074523.GW19428@kernel.dk> <20081002010315.1cda8147.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081002010315.1cda8147.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1486 Lines: 36 On Thu, Oct 02 2008, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:45:24 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > So. Where are these atime updaters getting blocked? > > > > Behind other IO activity I suppose, since it's marked async. A more > > appropriate fix may be to mark atime updates as sync IO. > > No, they might be getting blocked at a higher level. > > An async atime update gets recorded into the current transaction. > kjournald is working on the committing transaction. We try to keep > those separated, to prevent user processes from getting blocked behind > kjournald activity. > > But sometimes that doesn't work (including the place where I knowingly > broke it). If we can find and fix the offending piece of jbd logic (a > big if) then all is peachy. > > If the above theory turns out to be true then diddling IO priorities > is but a workaround. If diddling with io priorities makes a big difference (and Arjan said it does), it's clearly stuck inside the io scheduler waiting to be dispatched. If it was marked sync, it would be going through much faster. As async, it'll get mixed in with other async writeout and that doesn't get a lot of attention in case of sync activity. -- Jens Axboe -- 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/