linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
	jdike@addtoit.com, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6.24 BUG] 100% iowait on host while UML is running
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:53:21 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <475450A1.9000103@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49ir3fhg5n.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>


> We could check ctx->reqs_active before scheduling to determine whether
> or not we are waiting for I/O, but this would require taking the
> context lock in order to be accurate.  Given that the test would be
> only for the sake of book keeping, it might be okay to do it outside
> of the lock.
> 
> Zach, what are your thoughts on this?

I agree that it'd be OK to test it outside the lock, though we'll want
some commentary:

	/* Try to only show up in io wait if there are ops in flight */
	if (ctx->reqs_active)
		io_schedule();
	else
		schedule();

It's cheap, safe, and accurate the overwhelming majority of the time :).

We only need it in read_events().  The other two io_schedule() calls are
only reached to wait on pending reqs specifically.

It still won't make sense for iocbs which aren't performing IO, but I
guess that's one more bridge to cross when we come to it.

Do you want to throw this tiny patch together and submit it?

- z

  reply	other threads:[~2007-12-03 18:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-12-03 15:32 [2.6.24 BUG] 100% iowait on host while UML is running Miklos Szeredi
2007-12-03 16:55 ` Jeff Moyer
2007-12-03 18:53   ` Zach Brown [this message]
2007-12-03 19:33     ` Jeff Moyer

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=475450A1.9000103@oracle.com \
    --to=zach.brown@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /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).