On Wed, May 30 2007, Zach Brown wrote: > > Yeah, it'll confuse CFQ a lot actually. The threads either need to share > > an io context (clean approach, however will introduce locking for things > > that were previously lockless), or CFQ needs to get better support for > > cooperating processes. > > Do let me know if I can be of any help in this.
Thanks, it should not be a lot of work though. > > For the fio testing, we can make some improvements there. Right now you > > don't get any concurrency of the io requests if you set eg iodepth=32, > > as the 32 requests will be submitted as a linked chain of atoms. For io > > saturation, that's not really what you want. > > Just to be clear: I'm currently focusing on supporting sys_io_*() so I'm > using fio's libaio engine. I'm not testing the syslet syscall interface > yet. Ah ok, then there's no issue from that end! -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/