[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVOgMvccTUZB91OZFgjc_zQk0VnhxtBTO0OhwRYBye8Xnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 13:26:54 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] block: loop: introduce 'use_aio' sysfs file
On 1/25/15, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:44:47PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> So that users can control if kernel aio is used to submit I/O.
>
> Why do you want a sysfs flag for this instead of a flags in ->lo_flags
> at setup time? That's how all other loop-related ABI flags work.
The flag only effects performance or CPU/memory resource utilization,
and I plan to change it as dio flag.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com> writes:
>
>> So that users can control if kernel aio is used to submit I/O.
>
> How would a user know to choose aio or, um, /not/ aio? At the very
> least, documentation is required for this. I'd rather see the option
> disappear completely, though.
As the comment says in patch 4/4, using direct I/O can save memory/CPU
a lot, and won't hurt throughput if I/O is from filesystem. Otherwise,
user may choose to not use direct I/O for sake of throughput.
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