Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 May 2004 09:05:43 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: Cache queue_congestion_on/off_threshold |
| |
On Tue, May 11 2004, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > >>>> Jens Axboe wrote on Monday, May 10, 2004 7:30 AM > > > > > > > > Actually, with the good working batching we might get away with killing > > > > freereq completely. Have you tested that (if not, could you?) > > > > > > Sorry, I'm clueless on "good working batching". If you could please give > > > me some pointers, I will definitely test it. > > > > Something like this. > > > > --- linux-2.6.6/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~ 2004-05-10 16:23:45.684726955 +0200 > > +++ linux-2.6.6/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2004-05-10 16:29:04.333792268 +0200 > > @@ -2138,8 +2138,8 @@ > > > > static int __make_request(request_queue_t *q, struct bio *bio) > > { > > - struct request *req, *freereq = NULL; > > int el_ret, rw, nr_sectors, cur_nr_sectors, barrier, ra; > > + struct request *req; > > sector_t sector; > > > > > > [snip] ... > > I'm still working on this. With this patch, several processes stuck > in "D" state and never finish. Suspect it's the barrier thing, it > jumps through blk_plug_device() and might goof up the queue afterwards.
I'll do a quick test run (and review) of the patch, it wasn't even compiled here. So the chance of a slip-up is non-zero.
-- Jens Axboe
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |