On 2014-06-04 20:33, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:16:32PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-06-04 20:09, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:08:46PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 06/04/2014 05:29 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
It's in
blk_io_account_start
part_round_stat
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:16:32PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2014-06-04 20:09, Shaohua Li wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:08:46PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>On 06/04/2014 05:29 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> >>>It's in
> >>>
> >>>blk_io_account_start
> >>> part_round_stats
> >>> part
On 2014-06-04 20:09, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:08:46PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 06/04/2014 05:29 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
It's in
blk_io_account_start
part_round_stats
part_round_state_single
part_in_flight
I like the granularity idea.
And similarly fr
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:08:46PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 05:29 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> > It's in
> >
> > blk_io_account_start
> > part_round_stats
> > part_round_state_single
> > part_in_flight
> >
> > I like the granularity idea.
>
> And similarly from blk_io
On 06/04/2014 05:29 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> It's in
>
> blk_io_account_start
> part_round_stats
> part_round_state_single
> part_in_flight
>
> I like the granularity idea.
And similarly from blk_io_account_done() - which makes it even worse,
since it at both ends of the IO chain
On 2014-06-04 04:39, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 07:49:52AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-05-30 06:11, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:41:27AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 05/09/2014 08:12 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 05/09/2014 03:17 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
With
It's in
blk_io_account_start
part_round_stats
part_round_state_single
part_in_flight
I like the granularity idea.
Thanks,
Matias
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 07:49:52AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2014-05-30 06:11, Shaohua Li wrote
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 07:49:52AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2014-05-30 06:11, Shaohua Li wrote:
> >On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:41:27AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>On 05/09/2014 08:12 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>On 05/09/2014 03:17 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> With multi-million IOPS and mul
On 2014-05-30 06:11, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:41:27AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 05/09/2014 08:12 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 05/09/2014 03:17 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
With multi-million IOPS and multi-node workloads, the atomic_t in_flight
tracking becomes a bottleneck. Ch
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:41:27AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 08:12 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 05/09/2014 03:17 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> >> With multi-million IOPS and multi-node workloads, the atomic_t in_flight
> >> tracking becomes a bottleneck. Change the in-flight accountin
On 05/09/2014 08:12 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 03:17 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
>> With multi-million IOPS and multi-node workloads, the atomic_t in_flight
>> tracking becomes a bottleneck. Change the in-flight accounting to per-cpu
>> counters to elevate.
>
> The part stats are a pain
On 05/09/2014 03:17 AM, Matias Bjørling wrote:
> With multi-million IOPS and multi-node workloads, the atomic_t in_flight
> tracking becomes a bottleneck. Change the in-flight accounting to per-cpu
> counters to elevate.
The part stats are a pain in the butt, I've tried to come up with a
great fix
With multi-million IOPS and multi-node workloads, the atomic_t in_flight
tracking becomes a bottleneck. Change the in-flight accounting to per-cpu
counters to elevate.
Signed-off-by: Matias Bjørling
---
block/partition-generic.c | 4 ++--
include/linux/genhd.h | 25 ++---
13 matches
Mail list logo