On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 02:37:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:22:23 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > Can we agree on this patch?
> 
> This change will cause _all_ kjournald writeout to have elevated
> priority.  The majority of that writeout (in data=ordered mode) is file
> data, which we didn't intend to change.
> 
> The risk here is that this will *worsen* latency for plain old read(),
> because now kjournald writeout will be favoured.
> 
> There is in fact a good argument for _reducing_ kjournald's IO
> priority, not increasing it!
> 
> A better approach might be to mark the relevant buffers/bios as needing
> higher priority at submit_bh() time (if that's possible).  At least
> that way we don't accidentally elevate the priority of the bulk data.

You can do that for submit_bio() by calling bio_set_prio() before
submision - I did that for elevating only the XFS journal I/O.
submit_bh() doesn't have any way of passing a priority through to it
right now...

I should resurrect the XFS patches I had an retest them....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
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/