Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 05:29:22 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>, Tao Ma <tm@tao.ma>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFQ: async queue blocks the whole system
Message-ID: <20110610092922.GE4183@redhat.com>
References: <1307616577-6101-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma>
 <20110609141451.GD29913@redhat.com>
 <4DF0DD0F.8090407@tao.ma>
 <20110609153738.GF29913@redhat.com>
 <BANLkTinMp5_TS-=Y0ZsxB45RLQv18WCZDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110610091747.GC4183@redhat.com>
 <4DF1E1EB.8010808@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4DF1E1EB.8010808@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1563
Lines: 36

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:20:43AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-06-10 11:17, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:19:12AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > 
> > [..]
> >>> If there is no major advantage of draining sync requests before async
> >>> is dispatched, I think this should be an easy fix.
> >> I thought this is to avoid sync latency if we switch from an async
> >> queue to sync queue later.
> > 
> > Is it about the sync request latency which has already been dispatched? I 
> > really wish that driver and disk should do some prioritazation for reads
> > here and CFQ does not have to jump through hoops like drain sync requests
> > before async requests are dispatched.
> 
> That would never work. Are you suggesting putting that logic in all
> drivers? Or relying on hardware to get the fairness right? Not going to
> happen.

I was hoping that hardware does some prioritization. Well, in this case
even if hardware maintains FIFO behavior it should be good enough.

But I would not claim anything in this regard as I have never experimented
with it and have no idea that how sync latencies are impacted if we don't
drain the queue before dispathing WRITEs.

I was just wondering that with current generation hardware is it bad
enough that we need to keep this logic around?

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/