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

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

 



On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> 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.

XFS does lots of REQ_META writes from _xfs_buf_ioapply().  But none
of those should be in the critical path as the all metadata is logged
first and then written back later.

> 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.

And I'm still waiting for someone to explain when exactly REQ_PRIO
should be used..
--
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