[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140827162955.GF4827@kvack.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:29:55 -0400
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
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>,
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 5/9] block: loop: convert to blk-mq
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 08:08:59PM +0400, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
...
> 1) /dev/loop0 of 3.17.0-rc1 with Ming's patches applied -- 11K iops
> 2) the same as above, but call loop_queue_work() directly from
> loop_queue_rq() -- 270K iops
> 3) /dev/nullb0 of 3.17.0-rc1 -- 380K iops
>
> Taking into account so big difference (11K vs. 270K), would it be worthy
> to implement pure non-blocking version of aio_kernel_submit() returning
> error if blocking needed? Then loop driver (or any other in-kernel user)
> might firstly try that non-blocking submit as fast-path, and, only if
> it's failed, fall back to queueing.
What filesystem is the backing file for loop0 on? O_DIRECT access as
Ming's patches use should be non-blocking, and if not, that's something
to fix.
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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