From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>,
Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org,
minlei@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iomap: Fix the write_count in iomap_add_to_ioend().
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 14:33:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200917213312.GF7954@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200917144804.GA31389@infradead.org>
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:42:19AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > That wouldn't address the latency concern Dave brought up. That said, I
> > have no issue with this as a targeted solution for the softlockup issue.
> > iomap_finish_ioend[s]() is common code for both the workqueue and
> > ->bi_end_io() contexts so that would require either some kind of context
> > detection (and my understanding is in_atomic() is unreliable/frowned
> > upon) or a new "atomic" parameter through iomap_finish_ioend[s]() to
> > indicate whether it's safe to reschedule. Preference?
>
> True, it would not help with latency. But then again the latency
> should be controlled by the writeback code not doing giant writebacks
> to start with, shouldn't it?
>
> Any XFS/iomap specific limit also would not help with the block layer
> merging bios.
/me hasn't totally been following this thread, but iomap will also
aggregate the ioend completions; do we need to cap that to keep
latencies down? I was assuming that amortization was always favorable,
but maybe not?
--D
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-18 4:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-19 10:28 [PATCH] iomap: Fix the write_count in iomap_add_to_ioend() Anju T Sudhakar
2020-08-20 23:11 ` Dave Chinner
2020-08-21 4:45 ` Ritesh Harjani
2020-08-21 6:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-21 9:09 ` Ritesh Harjani
2020-08-21 21:53 ` Dave Chinner
2020-08-22 13:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-24 14:28 ` Brian Foster
2020-08-24 15:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-24 15:48 ` Brian Foster
2020-08-25 0:42 ` Dave Chinner
2020-08-25 14:49 ` Brian Foster
2020-08-31 4:01 ` Ming Lei
2020-08-31 14:35 ` Brian Foster
2020-09-16 0:12 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-09-16 8:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-16 13:07 ` Brian Foster
2020-09-17 8:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17 10:42 ` Brian Foster
2020-09-17 14:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17 21:33 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2020-09-17 23:13 ` Ming Lei
2020-08-21 6:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-21 6:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-08-21 8:53 ` Ritesh Harjani
2020-08-21 14:49 ` Jens Axboe
2020-08-21 13:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200917213312.GF7954@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minlei@redhat.com \
--cc=riteshh@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).