Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752969AbZASSZ0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:25:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754680AbZASSZI (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:25:08 -0500 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:25681 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752024AbZASSZG (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:25:06 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:23:37 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: Nikanth K Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , Andrea Arcangeli , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ltt-dev@lists.casi.polymtl.ca Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] block: Fix bio merge induced high I/O latency Message-ID: <20090119182336.GS30821@kernel.dk> References: <20090117004439.GA11492@Krystal> <20090117162657.GA31965@Krystal> <20090117190437.GZ30821@kernel.dk> <807b3a220901190745w79827b41u1cc9045a2ac268e5@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <807b3a220901190745w79827b41u1cc9045a2ac268e5@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1420 Lines: 35 On Mon, Jan 19 2009, Nikanth K wrote: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > As a quick test, could you try and increase the slice_idle to eg 20ms? > > Sometimes I've seen timing being slightly off, which makes us miss the > > sync window for the ls (in your case) process. Then you get a mix of > > async and sync IO all the time, which very much slows down the sync > > process. > > > > Do you mean to say that 'ls' could not submit another request until > the previous sync request completes, but its idle window gets disabled > as it takes way too long to complete during heavy load? But when there 'ls' would never submit a new request before the previous one completes, such is the nature of sync processes. That's the whole reason we have the idle window. > are requests in the driver, wont the idling be disabled anyway? Or did > you mean to increase slice_sync? No, idling is on a per-cfqq (process) basis. I did not mean to increase slice_sync, that wont help at all. It's the window between submissions of requests that I wanted to test being larger, but apparently that wasn't the case here. -- 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/