FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Device-mapper Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-11-2012, 07:31 PM
Kent Overstreet
 
Default block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by stacking drivers

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:58:05AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:36:28AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
> >> Does this preserve the CPU from which the bio was submitted
> >> originally. Not familiar with cmwq, may be Tejun can clarify.
> >>
> >> Tejun - the question is, do we honor the rq_affinity with the above
> >> rescue worker implementation?
> >
> > The work item would run from the same CPU but there isn't any
> > mechanism to keep track of the issuing CPU if there are multiple bios
> > to be rescued. Isn't rq_affinity an optimization hint? If so, I
> > don't think it matters here.
> >
>
> Thanks... Just worried about performance impact.
>
> Kent - Anything to validate that the performance is not impacted would
> be really good. Otherwise, the patch looks great.

Well - there'll only be any performance impact at all when we're memory
constrained enough that GFP_NOWAIT allocations fail, which for these
size allocations definitely isn't normal.

I did test it with forcing everything to use the rescuer, and I also
benchmarked Vivek's version - in any sane configuration, the impact of
punting everything to workqueue is not very noticable (the AHCI
interrupt handler uses more cpu).

>
> Feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Muthukumar Ratty <muthur@gmail.com>

Thanks!

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
 
Old 09-11-2012, 08:00 PM
Muthu Kumar
 
Default block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by stacking drivers

Kent,

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Kent Overstreet
<koverstreet@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:58:05AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:36:28AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
>> >> Does this preserve the CPU from which the bio was submitted
>> >> originally. Not familiar with cmwq, may be Tejun can clarify.
>> >>
>> >> Tejun - the question is, do we honor the rq_affinity with the above
>> >> rescue worker implementation?
>> >
>> > The work item would run from the same CPU but there isn't any
>> > mechanism to keep track of the issuing CPU if there are multiple bios
>> > to be rescued. Isn't rq_affinity an optimization hint? If so, I
>> > don't think it matters here.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks... Just worried about performance impact.
>>
>> Kent - Anything to validate that the performance is not impacted would
>> be really good. Otherwise, the patch looks great.
>
> Well - there'll only be any performance impact at all when we're memory
> constrained enough that GFP_NOWAIT allocations fail, which for these
> size allocations definitely isn't normal.


Agreed. If we are in this situation, we are already running in
degraded mode. So performance is not in question.

Regards,
Muthu

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org