Hi, This is just a comment. I like this sorting and I would like to apply this sorting code also to dm-writeboost. https://github.com/akiradeveloper/dm-writeboost Hope that improves the writeback. dm-writeboost writes back multiple (e.g. 4KB * 1000) data in cache device at once hoping that the scheduler sorts them implicitly. Explictly sort them possibly makes writeback more efficient. Thanks for the code. -- Akira On Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:39:40 -0400 Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 29 2014 at 4:11am -0400, > Milan Broz <gmazyland@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 03/28/2014 09:11 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Write requests are sorted in a red-black tree structure and are submitted > > > in the sorted order. > > > > > > In theory the sorting should be performed by the underlying disk scheduler, > > > however, in practice the disk scheduler accepts and sorts only 128 requests. > > > In order to sort more requests, we need to implement our own sorting. > > > > Hi, > > > > I think it would be nice to mention why simply increasing queue nr_request > > doesn't help. It is definitely not limited to 128, it is only default value. > > > > (I just wonder how this helps for SSDs where I think it depends what's fw > > doing with io requests anyway). > > Obviously is less of a concern on SSD but I think we'll find it still is > beneficial. > > > It would be nice to have sysfs switch to disable sorting in dmcrypt but that > > can be added later. > > Not sure sysfs is the right place to put this. Would prefer to use a DM > message to toggle it. And possibly default to off if the backing > storage is non-rotational. > > > Anyway, thanks for rebasing these patches! > > > > ... > > > +#define io_node rb_entry(parent, struct dm_crypt_io, rb_node) > > > + if (sector < io_node->sector) > > > + p = &io_node->rb_node.rb_left; > > > + else > > > + p = &io_node->rb_node.rb_right; > > > +#undef io_node > > > > Btw, could this be switched to inline function instead of define, > > or it is only me who thinks #define here is ugly? :) > > I wasn't a big fan of the #define .. #undef but I didn't see the need to > change it if Mikulas felt more comfortable with it this way. > > I recently wrote some rbtree code for dm-thinp, it also uses a #define > but outside of the function body (above the function), see: > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=a43260f01a3b6f5ef33d0abc86e9b0a92096cd84 > > We could change this code in a similar way. > > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
