Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755248AbYJBX7H (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:59:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753503AbYJBX6z (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:58:55 -0400 Received: from ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net ([203.16.214.57]:51323 "EHLO ipmail04.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753380AbYJBX6z (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:58:55 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkDAGf65Eh5LF82iGdsb2JhbACTWgEBARUiqUyBag X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,353,1220193000"; d="scan'208";a="219310931" Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 09:58:49 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jens Axboe , arjan@infradead.org, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority Message-ID: <20081002235849.GJ30001@disturbed> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , arjan@infradead.org, andi@firstfloor.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk References: <20081001200034.65eb67d6@infradead.org> <20081001215638.3a65134c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <87fxnfpjqj.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20081002075511.GX19428@kernel.dk> <20081002093326.GF30001@disturbed> <20081002094537.GA19428@kernel.dk> <20081002120408.21585949@infradead.org> <20081002192223.GP19428@kernel.dk> <20081002143713.2f8ebc04.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081002143713.2f8ebc04.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1375 Lines: 36 On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 02:37:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:22:23 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: > > Can we agree on this patch? > > This change will cause _all_ kjournald writeout to have elevated > priority. The majority of that writeout (in data=ordered mode) is file > data, which we didn't intend to change. > > The risk here is that this will *worsen* latency for plain old read(), > because now kjournald writeout will be favoured. > > There is in fact a good argument for _reducing_ kjournald's IO > priority, not increasing it! > > A better approach might be to mark the relevant buffers/bios as needing > higher priority at submit_bh() time (if that's possible). At least > that way we don't accidentally elevate the priority of the bulk data. You can do that for submit_bio() by calling bio_set_prio() before submision - I did that for elevating only the XFS journal I/O. submit_bh() doesn't have any way of passing a priority through to it right now... I should resurrect the XFS patches I had an retest them.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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/