linux-kernel - Re: Perfromance drop on SCSI hard disk

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4DD56104.6080801@fusionio.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 20:27:16 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To:	"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
CC:	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	"James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com" 
	<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Perfromance drop on SCSI hard disk

On 2011-05-19 10:26, Alex,Shi wrote:
> 
>> I will queue up the combined patch, it looks fine from here as well.
>>
> 
> When I have some time to study Jens and shaohua's patch today. I find a
> simpler way to resolved the re-enter issue on starved_list. Following
> Jens' idea, we can just put the starved_list device into kblockd if it
> come from __scsi_queue_insert(). 
> It can resolve the re-enter issue and recover performance totally, and
> need not a work_struct in every scsi_device. The logic/code also looks a
> bit simpler. 
> What's your opinion of this? 

Isn't this _identical_ to my original patch, with the added async run of
the queue passed in (which is important, an oversight)?

-- 
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/