[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVPLW-36aJV83L-Jfcp8MfW+XtZObM=sN-_W0ZV5xznEbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 22:32:43 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>,
"open list:AIO" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] block & aio: kernel aio and loop mq conversion
On 8/15/14, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 08:59:56PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Your concern is right, previous I thought that mq conversion wouldn't
>> improve
>> throughput, but I did ignore workqueue's concurrency management, it
>> turns out blk-mq conversion can improvment throughput close to 10 times
>> in
>> my test(loop over virtio-blk which is backed by one image on SSD). It is
>> like
>> POSIX style AIO after mq conversion thanks to workqueue, and I need to
>> update the performance data in V2.
>>
>> Actually kernel AIO needn't such high concurrency.
>
> Can you juse send a loop blk-mq conversion for now? I think that's
OK.
> a bit less controversial than the new kernel aio APIs, and keeping the
> two separate is a good idea in general.
Exactly, the two should be perfect pair for loop block, IMO.
Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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