On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:24:22AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > And if you don't? > > > > > > Well if you don't ask for anything, you wont get anything :-) > > > As I mentioned, the patch is a playing ground for trying various setups. > > > Everything defaults to 'do as usual', set options to setup certain test > > > scenarios. > > > > I mean if you don't know the completing CPU. > > I still don't know quite what part of that patch you are referring to > here. If you don't have queue_affinity set, queueing a new request with > the hardware is generally done on the same CPU that just completed a > request. That is true even without any patches.
Generally, but I guess not always. The database workloads in question (which you might know very well about ;)) apparently has a lot of queue empty and unplug conditions. Which I guess is the reason for Intel's initial patch. -- 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/