Re: Latency: Mingo's lowlatency patch still not perfect, but looking

Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Mon, 2 Aug 1999 11:25:48 +0200 (CEST)


On Mon, 2 Aug 1999 yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu wrote:

>> Note that the write performance of writing a large file decreases by about 30%
>> using Mingo's patch, and looking at the harddisk led, the led flashes

Try removing the additional run_task_queue() I was complaining about
yesterday. They won't change the latency results at all.

@@ -1750,11 +1768,12 @@
{
ndirty = 0;
repeat:
-
bh = lru_list[nlist];
if(bh)
for (i = nr_buffers_type[nlist]; i-- > 0 && ndirty < bdf_prm.b_un.ndirty;
bh = next) {
+ conditional_schedule();
+ run_task_queue(&tq_disk);
/* We may have stalled while
waiting
for I/O to complete. */
if(bh->b_list != nlist) goto
repeat;
next = bh->b_next_free;

Also the above snapshot from Ingo's -N2 patch is buggy and may crash the
kernel if the bh buffer gets released while sleeping. The right diff
written by hand looks like this:

for(...)
+ bh->b_count++;
+ conditional_schedule()
+ bh->b_count--;
/* We may have stalle...

Andrea

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