On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 11:14 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 20 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Perhaps our queues are too long - if the VFS _does_ back off, it'll take
> > > some time for that to have an effect.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps the fact that the queue size knows nothing about the _size_ of the
> > > requests in the queue is a problem.
> > 
> > It's complicated, the size may not matter a lot. 128 sequential 512kb IO
> > may complete faster than 128 random 4kb IO's.
> 
> Yes, is there any way a queue could be limited to a certain amount of
> 'completion time' ?

Not easily, we'd need some sort of disk profile for that to be remotely
reliable.

quoted text
> > > Back away even further here.
> > > 
> > > What user-visible problem(s) are we attemping to fix?
> > 
> > I'd like innocent-app-doing-little-write-or-fsync not being stalled by
> > big-bad-app-doing-lots-of-dirtying.
> 
> Could you please try this per BDI dirty limit -v7 patch series, the very
> last patch tries to address this by taking the per task dirty rate into
> account.

Yeah, I've been watching your patchset with interesting. Hope it'll get
merged some time soon, I think it's a real problem.

quoted text
> Although, on the fsync, ext3 seems to want to do a global fsync, which
> will still make the experience suck. :-(

Yeah well, extX sucks on many levels :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/