Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757676AbZDGHIw (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:08:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751908AbZDGHIl (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:08:41 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([93.163.65.50]:32981 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751800AbZDGHIk (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 03:08:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:08:36 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Linux Kernel Developers List , Ext4 Developers List , jack@suse.cz Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block_write_full_page: Use synchronous writes for WBC_SYNC_ALL writebacks Message-ID: <20090407070835.GM5178@kernel.dk> References: <1238185471-31152-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1238185471-31152-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <20090406232141.ebdb426a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20090406235052.1ea47513.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090406235052.1ea47513.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2981 Lines: 59 On Mon, Apr 06 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 23:21:41 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I mean, let's graph it: > > > > WRITE_SYNC -> WRITE_SYNC_PLUG -> BIO_RW_SYNCIO -> bio_sync() -> REQ_RW_SYNC -> rw_is_sync() -> does something mysterious in get_request() > > -> rq_is_sync() -> does something mysterious in IO schedulers > > -> BIO_RW_NOIDLE -> bio_noidle() -> REQ_NOIDLE -> rq_noidle() -> does something mysterious in cfq-iosched only > > -> BIO_RW_UNPLUG -> bio_unplug() -> REQ_UNPLUG -> OK, the cognoscenti know what this is supposed to do, but it is unused! > > whoop, I found a use of bio_unplug() in __make_request(). > > So it appears that the intent of your patch is to cause an unplug after > submission of each WB_SYNC_ALL block? > > But what about all the other stuff which WRITE_SYNC might or might not > do? What does WRITE_SYNC _actually_ do, and what are the actual > effects of this change?? > > And what effect will this large stream of unplugs have upon merging? It looks like a good candidate for WRITE_SYNC_PLUG instead, since it does more than one buffer submission before waiting. It likely wont mean a whole lot since we'll usually only have a single buffer on that page, but for < PAGE_CACHE_SIZE block sizes it could easily make a big difference (4 ios instead of 1!). So on the write side, basically we have: WRITE Normal async write. WRITE_SYNC_PLUG Sync write, someone will wait on this so don't treat it as background activity. This is a hint to the io schedulers. This one does NOT unplug the queue, either the caller should do it after submission, or he should make sure that the wait_on_* callbacks do it for him. WRITE_SYNC Like WRITE_SYNC_PLUG, but causes immediate unplug of the queue after submission. Most uses of this should likely use WRITE_SYNC_PLUG, at least in the normal IO path. WRITE_ODIRECT Like WRITE_SYNC, but also passes a hint to the IO scheduler that we should expect more IO. This is similar to how a read is treated in the scheduler, it'll enable anticipation/idling. Ditto for the SWRITE* variants, which are special hacks for ll_rw_block() only. I have killed REQ_UNPLUG, it doesn't make sense to pass the further down than to __make_request(), so the bio flag is enough. -- 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/