[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] Reworking dm-writeboost [was: Re: staging: Add dm-writeboost]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:43:25PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:20:50PM +0900, Akira Hayakawa wrote:
> > * Deferring ACK for barrier writes
> > Barrier flags such as REQ_FUA and REQ_FLUSH are handled lazily.
> > Immediately handling these bios badly slows down writeboost.
> > It surveils the bios with these flags and forcefully flushes them
> > at worst case within `barrier_deadline_ms` period.
> That rings alarm bells.
> If the filesystem is using REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH for ordering reasons,
> delaying them to allow other IOs to be submitted and dispatched may
> very well violate the IO ordering constraints the filesystem is
> trying to acheive.

If the fs is using REQ_FUA for ordering they need to wait for
completion of that bio before issuing any subsequent bio that needs to
be strictly ordered.  So I don't think there is any issue here.

> Alternatively, delaying them will stall the filesystem because it's
> waiting for said REQ_FUA IO to complete. For example, journal writes
> in XFS are extremely IO latency sensitive in workloads that have a
> signifincant number of ordering constraints (e.g. O_SYNC writes,
> fsync, etc) and delaying even one REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH can stall the
> filesystem for the majority of that barrier_deadline_ms.

Yes, this is a valid concern, but I assume Akira has benchmarked.
With dm-thin, I delay the REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH for a tiny amount, just to
see if there are any other FUA requests on my queue that can be
aggregated into a single flush.  I agree with you that the target
should never delay waiting for new io; that's asking for trouble.

- Joe

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]