Hi
I just wanted to add support for this patchset. There are others considering
implementing block IO devices that use the CAPI (CXL) interface and having this
patch-set upstream will be very useful in the future.
Supported-by: Stephen Bates
Cheers
Stephen
-Original Message-
From
>>
>> I'd like to attend LSF/MM and would like to discuss polling for block
>> drivers.
>>
>> Currently there is blk-iopoll but it is neither as widely used as NAPI
>> in the networking field and accoring to Sagi's findings in [1]
>> performance with polling is not on par with IRQ usage.
>>
>> On L
CPU load and average
completion times [2].
Stephen Bates
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=146307410101827&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=147803441801858&w=2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord
>
> This is a separate topic. The initial proposal is for polling for
> interrupt mitigation, you are talking about polling in the context of
> polling for completion of an IO.
>
> We can definitely talk about this form of polling as well, but it should
> be a separate topic and probably proposed i
Hi All
> A BPF track will join the annual LSF/MM Summit this year! Please read the
> updated description and CFP information below.
Well if we are adding BPF to LSF/MM I have to submit a request to discuss BPF
for block devices please!
There has been quite a bit of activity around the concept
On 2017-04-06, 6:33 AM, "Sagi Grimberg" wrote:
> Say it's connected via 2 legs, the bar is accessed from leg A and the
> data from the disk comes via leg B. In this case, the data is heading
> towards the p2p device via leg B (might be congested), the completion
> goes directly to the RC, and the
> Yes, this makes sense I think we really just want to distinguish host
> memory or not in terms of the dev_pagemap type.
I would like to see mutually exclusive flags for host memory (or not) and
persistence (or not).
Stephen
>> Yes, this makes sense I think we really just want to distinguish host
>> memory or not in terms of the dev_pagemap type.
>
>> I would like to see mutually exclusive flags for host memory (or not) and
>> persistence (or not).
>>
>
> Why persistence? It has zero meaning to the mm.
I like the ide
> My first reflex when reading this thread was to think that this whole domain
> lends it self excellently to testing via Qemu. Could it be that doing this in
> the opposite direction might be a safer approach in the long run even though
> (significant) more work up-front?
While the idea of QEM
>> Yes, that's why I used 'significant'. One good thing is that given resources
>> it can easily be done in parallel with other development, and will give
>> additional
>> insight of some form.
>
>Yup, well if someone wants to start working on an emulated RDMA device
>that actually simulates prop
10 matches
Mail list logo
