Re: Question about sequential large write IO bypass

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:38:54PM +0800, tang.junhui@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello all, 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We test sequential write IO with bs=1M by FIO,
> 
> and the bcache cache_mode is writeback,
> 
> we expect these IOs to be bypassed cache,
> 
> but actually they not.
> 
> We debug the code, and find in check_should_bypass():
> 
>     if (!congested &&
> 
>         mode == CACHE_MODE_WRITEBACK &&
> 
>         op_is_write(bio_op(bio)) &&
> 
>         (bio->bi_opf & REQ_SYNC))
> 
>         goto rescale
> 
> that means, If in writeback mode, a write IO with REQ_SYNC flag
> 
> will not be bypassed though it is a sequential large IO.
> 
>  
> 
> So, my question is: why do not we bypass these IOs ?
> 
> We planned to remove these codes. Does the modification do any harm?

You can remove that check, it won't break anything.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux