[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/9]: Reduce Log I/O latency

To: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9]: Reduce Log I/O latency
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:21:41 -0600
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20071122230922.GZ114266761@xxxxxxx>
References: <20071122003339.GH114266761__34694.2978365861$1195691722$gmane$org@xxxxxxx> <p73oddnhzoq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20071122011214.GR114266761@xxxxxxx> <20071122025726.GG17536@xxxxxxxxx> <20071122034106.GV114266761@xxxxxxx> <20071122072549.GQ19691@xxxxxxxxx> <20071122103159.GW114266761@xxxxxxx> <20071122181029.GR19691@xxxxxxxxx> <20071122222909.GY114266761@xxxxxxx> <20071122230922.GZ114266761@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:09:22AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 09:29:09AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:10:29PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > If I've got XFS on filesystems A and B on the same spindle (or volume
> > > group?) and my real RT I/O takes place only on B, then I want log
> > > flushing to happen in RT on B. But -never on A-. If I can do this with
> > > a tunable, I'm perfectly happy.
> > 
> > No, not another mount option. I'm just going to drop this one for
> > now...
> Actually, I might change it to use the highest non-rt priority, which
> would solve the latency issues in the normal cases and still leave
> the RT rope dangling for those that want to use it.
> Is that an acceptible compromise, Matt?

Yes, that's perfectly fine.

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>