On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:22:10AM +0530, Ankit Jain wrote:
> I should probably be doing better tests, any suggestions on what or
> how I can test?
Well, is the test actually *doing* anything with these IOs?
Calling io_submit() and then immediately waiting for completion is the
best case for off
On 07/25/2012 04:20 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 08:31:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> FWIW, if you are going to change generic code, you need to present
>> results for other filesystems as well (xfs, btrfs are typical), as
>> they may not have the same problems as ext4
On 07/25/2012 04:07 AM, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 05:11:05PM +0530, Ankit Jain wrote:
[snip]
>> With this patch, io_submit prepares all the kiocbs and then
>> adds (kicks) them to ctx->run_list (kicked) in one go and then
>> schedules the workqueue. The actual operations are not e
On 07/25/2012 04:01 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 05:11:05PM +0530, Ankit Jain wrote:
[snip]
>> **Unpatched**
>> read : io=102120KB, bw=618740 B/s, iops=151 , runt=169006msec
>> slat (usec): min=275 , max=87560 , avg=6571.88, stdev=2799.57
>
> Hmmm, I had to check the numbers t
> And most importantly block devices, as they are one of the biggest
> use cases of AIO. With an almost no-op get_blocks callback I can't
> see how this change would provide any gain there.
Historically we'd often see submission stuck waiting for requests.
Tasks often try to submit way more aio t
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 08:31:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> FWIW, if you are going to change generic code, you need to present
> results for other filesystems as well (xfs, btrfs are typical), as
> they may not have the same problems as ext4 or react the same way to
> your change. The result mi
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 05:11:05PM +0530, Ankit Jain wrote:
>
> Currently, io_submit tries to execute the io requests on the
> same thread, which could block because of various reaons (eg.
> allocation of disk blocks). So, essentially, io_submit ends
> up being a blocking call.
Yup, sadly that's
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 05:11:05PM +0530, Ankit Jain wrote:
>
> Currently, io_submit tries to execute the io requests on the
> same thread, which could block because of various reaons (eg.
> allocation of disk blocks). So, essentially, io_submit ends
> up being a blocking call.
>
> With this patc
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 06:04:23PM +0530, Rajat Sharma wrote:
> >
> > Currently, io_submit tries to execute the io requests on the
> > same thread, which could block because of various reaons (eg.
> > allocation of disk blocks). So, essentially, io_submit ends
> > up being a blocking call.
>
> Ide
Hi Ankit,
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Ankit Jain wrote:
>
>
> Currently, io_submit tries to execute the io requests on the
> same thread, which could block because of various reaons (eg.
> allocation of disk blocks). So, essentially, io_submit ends
> up being a blocking call.
>
Ideally file
Currently, io_submit tries to execute the io requests on the
same thread, which could block because of various reaons (eg.
allocation of disk blocks). So, essentially, io_submit ends
up being a blocking call.
With this patch, io_submit prepares all the kiocbs and then
adds (kicks) them to ctx->ru
11 matches
Mail list logo
