On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:43:36 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The s/lock_page_slow/lock_page_blocking/ got lost. I redid it.
>
> I thought the lock_page_blocking was an alternative you had suggested
> to the __lock_page vs lock_page_async discussion which got resolved
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 05:08:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:14:19 +0530
> Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> > > Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:14:19 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> > Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:14:19 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 05:08:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:14:19 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:43:36 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The s/lock_page_slow/lock_page_blocking/ got lost. I redid it.
I thought the lock_page_blocking was an alternative you had suggested
to the __lock_page vs lock_page_async discussion which got resolved later.
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Patches against next -mm would be appreciated, please. Sorry about that.
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Patches against next -mm would be appreciated, please. Sorry about that.
I have
On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:02:33AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> > > > Suparna
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:02:33AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> > > Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:02:33AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at
On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 08:02:33AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL
On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> > Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 28
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
> Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
> > > Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 05:50:11PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
OK, but I think that after IO submission, you do not run sync_page to
unplug the block device, like the normal IO path would (via lock_page,
before the explicit plug patches).
In the buffered AIO case,
On Thu, Jan 04 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Please let know how you want this fixed up.
> >
> > >From what I can tell the comments in the unplug patches seem to say that
> > it needs more work and testing, so perhaps a separate fixup patch may be
> > a better idea rather than make the fsaio
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
> > Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This patchset implements changes to make
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 05:50:11PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:51:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> >>So long as AIO threads do the same, there would be no problem (plugging
> >>is optional, of course).
> >
> >
> >Yup, the AIO threads run
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 05:50:11PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:51:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
So long as AIO threads do the same, there would be no problem (plugging
is optional, of course).
Yup, the AIO threads run the same code
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
On Thu, Jan 04 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
Please let know how you want this fixed up.
From what I can tell the comments in the unplug patches seem to say that
it needs more work and testing, so perhaps a separate fixup patch may be
a better idea rather than make the fsaio patchset
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 05:50:11PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
OK, but I think that after IO submission, you do not run sync_page to
unplug the block device, like the normal IO path would (via lock_page,
before the explicit plug patches).
In the buffered AIO case,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05 2007, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:02:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:26:21 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:51:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
So long as AIO threads do the same, there would be no problem (plugging
is optional, of course).
Yup, the AIO threads run the same code as for regular IO, i.e in the rare
situations where they actually
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:51:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> >>Plus Jens's unplugging changes add more reliance upon context inside
> >>*current, for the plugging and unplugging operations. I
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Plus Jens's unplugging changes add more reliance upon context inside
*current, for the plugging and unplugging operations. I expect that the
fsaio patches will need to be aware of the protocol which
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
> Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
> > and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
>
> Unfortunately the
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
> and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
Unfortunately the unplugging changes in Jen's block tree have trashed these
patches to a degree
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
Unfortunately the unplugging changes in Jen's block tree have trashed these
patches to a degree that
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:15:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
Unfortunately the unplugging
Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:51:58PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
So long as AIO threads do the same, there would be no problem (plugging
is optional, of course).
Yup, the AIO threads run the same code as for regular IO, i.e in the rare
situations where they actually
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
> and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
I did s/lock_page_slow/lock_page_blocking/g then merged all these
into -mm, thanks.
-
To
* Suparna Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following is a sampling of comparative aio-stress results with the
> patches (each run starts with uncached files):
>
> -
>
> aio-stress throughput comparisons (in
Currently native linux AIO is properly supported (in the sense of
actually being asynchronous) only for files opened with O_DIRECT.
While this suffices for a major (and most visible) user of AIO, i.e. databases,
other types of users like Samba require AIO support for regular file IO.
Also, for
Currently native linux AIO is properly supported (in the sense of
actually being asynchronous) only for files opened with O_DIRECT.
While this suffices for a major (and most visible) user of AIO, i.e. databases,
other types of users like Samba require AIO support for regular file IO.
Also, for
* Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following is a sampling of comparative aio-stress results with the
patches (each run starts with uncached files):
-
aio-stress throughput comparisons (in MB/s):
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:53:08 +0530
Suparna Bhattacharya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patchset implements changes to make filesystem AIO read
and write asynchronous for the non O_DIRECT case.
I did s/lock_page_slow/lock_page_blocking/g then merged all these
into -mm, thanks.
-
To unsubscribe
38 matches
Mail list logo
