On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 04:22:11PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
>
> What I think Nick is referring to is the comments I made that at a
> higher layer (e.g. filesystems) migrating completions to the
> submitter CPU may be exactly the wrong thing to do. I don't recall
> making any comments on
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 04:22:11PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
What I think Nick is referring to is the comments I made that at a
higher layer (e.g. filesystems) migrating completions to the
submitter CPU may be exactly the wrong thing to do. I don't recall
making any comments on migrating
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > At least they reported it to be the most efficient scheme in their
> > > > testing, and Dave thought that migrating completions out to submitters
> > > > might be a bottleneck in some cases.
> > >
> > > More so than migrating
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
At least they reported it to be the most efficient scheme in their
testing, and Dave thought that migrating completions out to submitters
might be a bottleneck in some cases.
More so than migrating submitters to
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
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
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
On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 08:47:47AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty
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 :-)
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 08:47:47AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
> > > not needed. Works for me, no
On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
> > not needed. Works for me, no performance testing (that's a hint for Alan
> > to try and queue up some
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
> not needed. Works for me, no performance testing (that's a hint for Alan
> to try and queue up some testing for this variant as well :-)
Well this
Jens Axboe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
> not needed. Works for me, no performance testing (that's a hint for Alan
> to try and queue up some testing for this variant as well :-)
>
>
I'll get to that, working my way through the first
Hi,
Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
not needed. Works for me, no performance testing (that's a hint for Alan
to try and queue up some testing for this variant as well :-)
--
Jens Axboe
>From b76144d3b3be91c691717e222f92747c0cbb8d5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
Hi,
Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
not needed. Works for me, no performance testing (that's a hint for Alan
to try and queue up some testing for this variant as well :-)
--
Jens Axboe
From b76144d3b3be91c691717e222f92747c0cbb8d5c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi,
Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
not needed. Works for me, no performance testing (that's a hint for Alan
to try and queue up some testing for this variant as well :-)
I'll get to that, working my way through the first batch
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi,
Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
not needed. Works for me, no performance testing (that's a hint for Alan
to try and queue up some testing for this variant as well :-)
Well this stuff
On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 07:25:45PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
Hi,
Here's a variant using kernel threads only, the nasty arch bits are then
not needed. Works for me, no performance testing (that's a hint for Alan
to try and queue up some testing for
18 matches
Mail list logo
