[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070530173353.GO15559@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 19:33:55 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6
On Wed, May 30 2007, Zach Brown wrote:
> > Yeah, it'll confuse CFQ a lot actually. The threads either need to share
> > an io context (clean approach, however will introduce locking for things
> > that were previously lockless), or CFQ needs to get better support for
> > cooperating processes.
>
> Do let me know if I can be of any help in this.
Thanks, it should not be a lot of work though.
> > For the fio testing, we can make some improvements there. Right now you
> > don't get any concurrency of the io requests if you set eg iodepth=32,
> > as the 32 requests will be submitted as a linked chain of atoms. For io
> > saturation, that's not really what you want.
>
> Just to be clear: I'm currently focusing on supporting sys_io_*() so I'm
> using fio's libaio engine. I'm not testing the syslet syscall interface
> yet.
Ah ok, then there's no issue from that end!
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists