forked from Minki/linux
Btrfs: Throttle for async bio submits higher up the chain
The current code waits for the count of async bio submits to get below a given threshold if it is too high right after adding the latest bio to the work queue. This isn't optimal because the caller may have sequential adjacent bios pending they are waiting to send down the pipe. This changeset requires the caller to wait on the async bio count, and changes the async checksumming submits to wait for async bios any time they self throttle. The end result is much higher sequential throughput. Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
f3f9931e3d
commit
9473f16c75
@ -487,9 +487,15 @@ int btrfs_wq_submit_bio(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct inode *inode,
|
||||
atomic_inc(&fs_info->nr_async_submits);
|
||||
btrfs_queue_worker(&fs_info->workers, &async->work);
|
||||
|
||||
if (atomic_read(&fs_info->nr_async_submits) > limit) {
|
||||
wait_event_timeout(fs_info->async_submit_wait,
|
||||
(atomic_read(&fs_info->nr_async_submits) < limit),
|
||||
HZ/10);
|
||||
|
||||
wait_event_timeout(fs_info->async_submit_wait,
|
||||
(atomic_read(&fs_info->nr_async_bios) < limit),
|
||||
HZ/10);
|
||||
}
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -2145,7 +2145,6 @@ int schedule_bio(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_device *device,
|
||||
int rw, struct bio *bio)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int should_queue = 1;
|
||||
unsigned long limit;
|
||||
|
||||
/* don't bother with additional async steps for reads, right now */
|
||||
if (!(rw & (1 << BIO_RW))) {
|
||||
@ -2182,11 +2181,6 @@ int schedule_bio(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_device *device,
|
||||
if (should_queue)
|
||||
btrfs_queue_worker(&root->fs_info->submit_workers,
|
||||
&device->work);
|
||||
|
||||
limit = btrfs_async_submit_limit(root->fs_info);
|
||||
wait_event_timeout(root->fs_info->async_submit_wait,
|
||||
(atomic_read(&root->fs_info->nr_async_bios) < limit),
|
||||
HZ/10);
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user