On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:56:53AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:22:56 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a reposting of a patch that was originally in the blk-mq series.
> > It has huge upside on shared access to a multiqueue device doing
> > O_DIRECT, it's
On 04/15/2015 01:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:26:51 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
Is there similar impact to direct-io-to-file? It would be nice to fix
that up also. Many filesystems do something along the lines of
atomic_inc(i_dio_count);
wibble()
at
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:26:51 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Is there similar impact to direct-io-to-file? It would be nice to fix
> > that up also. Many filesystems do something along the lines of
> >
> > atomic_inc(i_dio_count);
> > wibble()
> > atomic_dev(i_dio_count);
> > __bloc
On 04/15/2015 12:56 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:22:56 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi,
This is a reposting of a patch that was originally in the blk-mq series.
It has huge upside on shared access to a multiqueue device doing
O_DIRECT, it's basically the scaling block that ends
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 12:22:56 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a reposting of a patch that was originally in the blk-mq series.
> It has huge upside on shared access to a multiqueue device doing
> O_DIRECT, it's basically the scaling block that ends up killing
> performance. A quick test
Hi,
This is a reposting of a patch that was originally in the blk-mq series.
It has huge upside on shared access to a multiqueue device doing
O_DIRECT, it's basically the scaling block that ends up killing
performance. A quick test here reveals that we spend 30% of all system
time just incrementin
6 matches
Mail list logo
