linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2]block: change force plug flush call order

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E5503AA.3010908@fusionio.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:59:06 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
CC:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2]block: change force plug flush call order

On 2011-08-24 10:55, Shaohua Li wrote:
> Do blk_flush_plug_list() first and then add new request at the tail. New
> request can't be merged to existing requests, but later new requests might
> be merged with this new one. If blk_flush_plug_list() is done later, the
> merge doesn't happen.
> Believe it or not, this fixes a 10% regression running sysbench workload.

Heh, funky. But conceptually it makes sense to flush first, since we
already know that this request isn't mergeable already. Applied.

-- 
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/