On Dec 24, 2007 21:18 +0300, Alex Tomas wrote:
> Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 2007 16:39 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> @@ -3790,7 +3782,9 @@ repeat:
>>> /* if we still need more blocks and some PAs were used, try again */
>>> if (free < needed && busy) {
>>> + busy = 0;
>>> ext4_unlock_group(sb, group);
>>> + schedule_timeout(HZ);
>>> goto repeat;
>>> }
>>
>> Is there nothing we could actually wait on instead of just sleeping for
>> 1 second?
>
> actually it was done for simplicity - in my tests busy PA happened quite rare.
> I have no objection to improve this with special wait queue.
If it is a very rare case, then I have no objection. I just wanted to
avoid some sort of "Nagle" case where suddenly a workload is taking 1s
instead of 1ms to complete each IO.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
