[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49y6kc6yib.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 16:19:08 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq-iosched: non-rot devices do not need read queue merging
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> writes:
> Thanks Jeff, one thing comes to mind. Now with recent changes, we drive deeper
> depths on SSD with NCQ and there are not many pending cfqq on service tree
> until and unless number of parallel threads exceed NCQ depth (32). If
> that's the case, then I think we might not be seeing lot of queue merging
> happening in this test case until and unless dump utility is creating more
> than 32 threads.
>
> If time permits, it might also be interesting to run the same test with queue
> depth 1 and see if SSDs without NCQ will suffer or not.
Corrado, I think what Vivek is getting at is that you should check for
both blk_queue_nonrot and cfqd->hw_tag (like in cfq_arm_slice_timer).
Do you agree?
Cheers,
Jeff
--
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