Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934831AbZLGIuD (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 03:50:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934789AbZLGIuA (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 03:50:00 -0500 Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:51550 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934796AbZLGIt6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Dec 2009 03:49:58 -0500 Message-ID: <4B1CC0BD.1000405@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:45:49 +0800 From: Gui Jianfeng User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vivek Goyal , jens.axboe@oracle.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nauman@google.com, dpshah@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, ryov@valinux.co.jp, fernando@oss.ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@ap.jp.nec.com, taka@valinux.co.jp, jmoyer@redhat.com, righi.andrea@gmail.com, m-ikeda@ds.jp.nec.com, czoccolo@gmail.com, Alan.Brunelle@hp.com Subject: Re: Block IO Controller V4 References: <1259549968-10369-1-git-send-email-vgoyal@redhat.com> <4B15C828.4080407@cn.fujitsu.com> <20091202142508.GA31715@redhat.com> <4B1779CE.1050801@cn.fujitsu.com> <20091203143641.GA3887@redhat.com> <20091203181003.GD2735@redhat.com> <20091203235153.GG2735@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20091203235153.GG2735@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1388 Lines: 45 Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 01:10:03PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > [..] >> Hi Gui, >> >> Can you please try following patch and see if it helps you. If not, then >> we need to figure out why we choose to not idle and delete the group from >> service tree. >> > > Hi Gui, > > Please try this version of the patch instead of previous one. During more > testing I saw some additional deletions where we should have waited and > the reason being that we were hitting boundary condition. At the request > completion time slice has not expired but after 4-5 ns, select_queue hits > and jiffy has incremented by then and slice expires. > > ttime_mean, is not covering this condition because this workload is so > sequential that ttime_mean=0. > > So I am checking for new condition where if we are into last ms of slice, > mark the queue wait_busy. > > Thanks > Vivek > > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal Hi, Vivek I add some debug message in select_queue, it does meet the boundary condition. I tried this patch, and works fine on my box. Acked-by: Gui Jianfeng Thanks, Gui -- 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/