On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 11:51:20AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 10:46:45AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 07:48:08AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 12:51:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > Further with no backoff we don't need to gather huge delwri lists to > > > > > mitigate the impact of backoffs, so we can submit IO more frequently > > > > > and reduce the time log items spend in flushing state by breaking > > > > > out of the item push loop once we've gathered enough IO to batch > > > > > submission effectively. > > > > > > > > Is that what the new count > 1000 branch does? > > > > > > That's my interpreation anyway. I'll let Dave chime in if he disagrees. Yes, that's correct. I didn't finish this patch - I never wrote the comments in the code to explain this because I don't bother doing that until I've validated the heuristic and know it mostly works as desired. I simply hadn't closed the loop. Please add comments to the code to explain what the magic "1000" is... > > <nod> I'll await a response on this... > > <shrug> No response after 11 days, I'll not hold this up further over a > minor point. I've been on PTO for the last couple of weeks, and I'm still catching up on email. You could have just pinged me on #xfs asking if I'd seen this, just like jlayton did about the mgtime stuff last week. I answered even though I was on PTO. You always used to do this when you wanted an answer to a question - I'm curious as to why have you stopped using #xfs to ask questions about code, bugs and patch reviews? -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
