On 8/24/18 12:12 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > That's totally fair. As compared to before the patch it was way too high > and my test case wasn't even running due to the thunderign herd issues and > queue re-ordering. Anyways as I also mentioned before 10 times > contention is not too bad since its not really affecting much the number of > files read in my applciation. Also, you are right waking up N tasks seems > plausible. OK, I'm going to take that as a positive response. I'm going to propose the last patch as the final addition in this round, since it does fix a gap in the previous. And I do think that we need to wake as many tasks as can make progress, otherwise we're deliberately running the device at a lower load than we should. > My application is somewhat similar to database workload. It does uses fsync > internally also. So what it does is it creates files of random sizes with > random contents. It stores the hash of those files in memory. During the > test it reads those files back from storage and checks their hashes. How many tasks are running for your test? -- Jens Axboe
