Re: [PATCH] cfq: priority boost on meta/prio marked IO

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

 



Hi, Jens,

Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx> writes:

> At Facebook, we have a number of cases where people use ionice to set a
> lower priority, then end up having tasks stuck for a long time because
> eg meta data updates from an idle priority tasks is blocking out higher
> priority processes. It's bad enough that it will trigger the softlockup
> warning.

I expect a higher prio process could be blocked on a lower prio process
reading the same metadata, too.  I had a hard time tracking down where
REQ_META WRITE I/O was issued outside of the journal or writeback paths
(and I hope you're not ionice-ing those!).  Eventually, with the help of
sandeen, I found some oddball cases that I doubt you're running into.
Can you enlighten me as to where this (REQ_META write I/O) is happening?
I don't disagree that it's a problem, I just would like to understand
your problem case better.

Anyway, it seems to me you could just set REQ_PRIO in the code paths you
care about instead of modifying CFQ to treat REQ_META and REQ_PRIO as
the same thing, which essentially undoes commit 65299a3b788bd ("block:
separate priority boosting from REQ_META") from Christoph.

Thanks!
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux