linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: 韩磊 <bonben1989@gmail.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: A thought about IO scheduler in linux kernel for SSD
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:02:12 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVPRto2PX6J5CqNDTB42Ef7=+ZmgTdA=7Qdswc6NvN93bQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131023105931.GG1275@quack.suse.cz>

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> On Wed 23-10-13 08:47:44, 韩磊 wrote:
>> Nowadays,the IO schedulers in linux kernel have four types:
>>
>> deadline,noop,Anticiptory and CFQ.CFQ is the default scheduler.But CFQ is
>> not a good scheduler for SSD,dealine may be a good choice.
>
>> When deadline runs,it has a mount of computation about merging and
>> sorting.Merge has three types: front_merge,no_merge and back_merge.
>> Why don't have  another type: merge based same sector.For example,it have
>> two bios in a request list,theyboth have the same bi->sector,the bi->size
>> maybe not equal. Whether can we put the latter bio replace the former?What
>> do you find that significant?Or the other levels in OS has finished this
>> function?
>   That doesn't make much sense to me. If there are two bios in flight for
> some sector, results are undefined. Thus we usually avoid such situation
> (usually we want to have defined contents of the disk :). The exclusion is
> usually achieved at higher level using page locking etc. So adding code
> speeding up such requests doesn't seem worth it.

The situation might be triggered when same file is read from two tasks,
one is read via page cache, and another one is read by O_DIRECT.

But still not sure if that makes sense.

Thanks,
-- 
Ming Lei

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-10-25  4:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-10-23  0:47 A thought about IO scheduler in linux kernel for SSD 韩磊
2013-10-23 10:59 ` Jan Kara
2013-10-25  3:10   ` 韩磊
2013-10-25  8:20     ` Jan Kara
2013-10-25  4:02   ` Ming Lei [this message]
2013-10-25  5:00     ` 韩磊
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-10-22 13:44 韩磊
2013-10-22 13:40 韩磊

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='CACVXFVPRto2PX6J5CqNDTB42Ef7=+ZmgTdA=7Qdswc6NvN93bQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
    --cc=bonben1989@gmail.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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).