Re: [PATCH] Give kjournald a IOPRIO_CLASS_RT io priority

[Bodo Eggert]

Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02 2008, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 09:55:11AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:

>> > Good point. I think we should mark the IO as sync, and maintain the same
>> > priority level. Any IO that ends up being waited on is sync by
>> > definition, we just need to expand the coverage a bit.
>> 
>> That's what XFS has always done - mark the journal I/O as sync.
>> Still, once you load up the elevator, the sync I/O can still get
>> delayed for hundreds of milliseconds before dispatch, which was
>> why I started looking at boosting the priority of the log I/O.
>> It proved to be much more effective at getting the log I/O
>> dispatched than the existing "mark it sync" technique....
> 
> Sure, just marking it as sync is not a magic bullet. It'll be in the
> first priority for that class, but it'll share bandwidth with other
> processes. So if you have lots of IO going on, it can take hundreds of
> miliseconds before being dispatched.

Sounds like you need a priority class besides sync and async.


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