Re: [PATCH 21/32] fs/aio: aio_wq isn't used in memory reclaim path

[Jeff Moyer]

Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 09:50:57AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> > Yeap.  Do you agree that the concurrency limit is necessary?  If not,
>> > we can just put everything onto system_wq.
>> 
>> I'm not sure whether it's strictly necessary (there may very well be a
>> need for this in the usb gadgetfs code), but keeping it the same at
>> least seems safe.
>
> Limiting concurrency on aio requests is exactly the opposite of what the 
> usb gadgetfs requires.

I'll have to dig on what their requirements are.  After briefly looking
at mailing list archives, it appears they use the aio workqueue to queue
work after a completed I/O.  I think Zach actually had posted a patch to
change them over to using their own workqueue for that.  At any rate, it
may well be that they don't have a concurrency requirement (in fact, it
would be surprising if they did).  However, I wasn't going to propose
changing the way things were done w/o someone chiming in and saying they
needed it.

> It's similarly bad for filesystem aio when there's a mix of small and
> large requests in flight.

Well, the aio workqueue isn't actually used by the filesystem aio paths
at all (except for the fput_work, and that's being moved to the system
workqueue).

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/