[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e5e476b0912301231k3214bb3dicbfc59d94623d72@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:31:03 +0100
From: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: non-rot devices do not need queue merging
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30 2009, Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> Non rotational devices' performances are not affected by
>> distance of requests, so there is no point in having overhead
>> to merge queues of nearby requests.
>
> If the distance is zero, it may still make a big difference (at least
> for writes). This check would be better as "ncq and doesn't suck", ala
>
> blk_queue_nonrot(q) && tagged
>
> like we do elsewhere.
For reads, though, even flash cards and netbook ssds are completely
unaffected. I have done few experiments on my available disks:
* http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3525644/service_time.png (I used the
program: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3525644/stride.c to get the graphs).
For distance 0, I think request merging will be more effective than
queue merging, moreover I think the multi-thread trick to have large
I/O depth is used for reads, not writes (where simply issuing buffered
writes already achieves a similar effect), so I think it is safe to
disable it for all non-rotational devices.
Thanks,
Corrado
>
> --
> 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