From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 5 21:52:23 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E49A216A407; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 21:52:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jd@ugcs.caltech.edu) Received: from heave.ugcs.caltech.edu (heave.ugcs.caltech.edu [131.215.176.104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF30113C441; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 21:52:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jd@ugcs.caltech.edu) Received: by heave.ugcs.caltech.edu (Postfix, from userid 3640) id D3E208F482; Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:25:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:25:43 -0800 From: Paul Allen To: Luigi Rizzo Message-ID: <20070105212543.GA8574@heave.ugcs.caltech.edu> References: <20070105123127.gnk0v58p44488g48@webmail.ntnu.no> <4085.1167997049@critter.freebsd.dk> <20070105184621.dh8kgoy7ko4gk4gc@webmail.ntnu.no> <20070105102905.A91349@xorpc.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070105102905.A91349@xorpc.icir.org> Sender: jd@ugcs.caltech.edu Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, lulf@stud.ntnu.no, Ivan Voras , freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Pluggable Disk Schedulers in GEOM X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:52:24 -0000 >From Luigi Rizzo , Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:29:05AM -0800: > Essentially, a process doing e.g. a 'cvs checkout' on a large > tree will still kill the performance of your disk no matter > which scheduler you are using (elevator, hybrid, the dumb one that > we wrote as an example). The reasons, i suspect, are a mixture > of the ones described above. Interaction of the disk scheduler and softupdates? As I understand the softupdate code, the disk scheduler would be ignorant of I/O that depends on the completion of certain writes because issuing that I/O to the lower layers is delayed until the equiv of bio_done occurs. I don't see what use a disk scheduler would be unless it is possible to push information about any partial ordering requirements down to the level at which the scheduler can see and enforce them. As you alude to, the scheduler cannot do anything useful unless it sees a comprehensive picture of the pending I/O. -Paul