Re: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

2012-11-13 Thread Jeff Moyer
gt; >> -Original Message- >> From: Jeff Moyer [mailto:jmo...@redhat.com] >> Sent: Monday, 12 November, 2012 3:27 PM >> To: Bart Van Assche >> Cc: Elliott, Robert (Server Storage); linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org >> Subject: Re: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations m

RE: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

2012-11-12 Thread Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
gt; Cc: Elliott, Robert (Server Storage); linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly > > Bart Van Assche writes: > > > On 11/09/12 21:46, Jeff Moyer wrote: > >>> On 11/06/12 16:41, Elliott, Robert (Server Storag

Re: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

2012-11-12 Thread Jeff Moyer
Bart Van Assche writes: > On 11/09/12 21:46, Jeff Moyer wrote: >>> On 11/06/12 16:41, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote: It's certainly better to tie them all to one node then let them be randomly scattered across nodes; your 6% observation may simply be from that. H

Re: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

2012-11-10 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 11/09/12 21:46, Jeff Moyer wrote: On 11/06/12 16:41, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote: It's certainly better to tie them all to one node then let them be randomly scattered across nodes; your 6% observation may simply be from that. How do you think these compare, though (for structures

Re: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

2012-11-09 Thread Jeff Moyer
Bart Van Assche writes: > On 11/06/12 16:41, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote: >> It's certainly better to tie them all to one node then let them be >> randomly scattered across nodes; your 6% observation may simply be >> from that. >> >> How do you think these compare, though (for structur

Re: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

2012-11-06 Thread Bart Van Assche
On 11/06/12 16:41, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote: It's certainly better to tie them all to one node then let them be > randomly scattered across nodes; your 6% observation may simply be > from that. How do you think these compare, though (for structures that are per-IO)? - tying the s

RE: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

2012-11-06 Thread Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
w...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-scsi-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Moyer Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 2:46 PM To: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Cc: Bart Van Assche Subject: [patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly Hi, This pa

[patch,v2 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly

2012-11-02 Thread Jeff Moyer
Hi, This patch set makes memory allocations for data structures used in the I/O path more numa friendly by allocating them from the same numa node as the storage device. I've only converted a handfull of drivers at this point. My testing showed that, for workloads where the I/O processes were no