On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 14:12, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:42:41PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > + if (q->rq[rw].count >= q->batch_requests) {
> > + smp_mb();
> > + if (waitqueue_active(&q->wait_for_requests[rw]))
> > + wake_up(&q->wait_for_requests[rw]);
>
> in my tree I also changed this to:
>
> wake_up_nr(&q->wait_for_requests[rw], q->rq[rw].count);
>
> otherwise only one waiter will eat the requests, while multiple waiters
> can eat requests in parallel instead because we freed not just 1 request
> but many of them.
I tried a few variations of this yesterday and they all led to horrible
latencies, but I couldn't really explain why. I had a bunch of other
stuff in at the time to try and improve throughput though, so I'll try
it again.
I think part of the problem is the cascading wakeups from
get_request_wait_wakeup(). So if we wakeup 32 procs they in turn wakeup
another 32, etc.
-chris
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:28 EST