On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:38:05PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:04:48PM -0400, Keith Busch wrote:
>
> > Having a 1:1 already seemed like the ideal solution since you can't
> > simultaneously utilize more than that from the host, so there's no more
> > h/w parallelis
On 09/19/16 03:38, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:04:48PM -0400, Keith Busch wrote:
>
> CC-ing linux-bl...@vger.kernel.org
>
>> I'm not sure I see how this helps. That probably means I'm not considering
>> the right scenario. Could you elaborate on when having multiple hardwa
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:04:48PM -0400, Keith Busch wrote:
CC-ing linux-bl...@vger.kernel.org
> I'm not sure I see how this helps. That probably means I'm not considering
> the right scenario. Could you elaborate on when having multiple hardware
> queues to choose from a given CPU will provide
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:51:11AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> Linux block device layer limits number of hardware contexts queues
> to number of CPUs in the system. That looks like suboptimal hardware
> utilization in systems where number of CPUs is (significantly) less
> than number of hardw
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:27:43AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> this clashes badly with the my queue mapping rework that went into
> Jens tree recently.
Yeah, I fully aware the RFC-marked patches would clash with your
works. I will surely rework them if the proposal considered w
Hi Alex,
this clashes badly with the my queue mapping rework that went into
Jens tree recently.
But in the meantime: there seem to be lots of little bugfixes and
cleanups in the series, any chance you could send them out as a first
series while updating the rest?
Also please Cc the linux-block l
6 matches
Mail list logo
