[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E2B15DB.4090302@fusionio.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 20:41:31 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...estorage.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] block: strict rq_affinity
On 2011-07-22 22:59, Dan Williams wrote:
> Some storage controllers benefit from completions always being steered
> to the strict requester cpu rather than the looser "per-socket" steering
> that blk_cpu_to_group() attempts by default.
>
> echo 2 > /sys/block/<bdev>/queue/rq_affinity
I have applied this one, with a modified patch description.
I like the adaptive solution, but it should be rewritten to not declare
and expose softirq internals. Essentially have an API from
kernel/softirq.c that can return whether a given (or perhaps just local)
softirq handler is busy or not.
--
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