From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: multithread phase 2
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 19:41:22 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110110084122.GF28803@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201101100857.53421@zmi.at>
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 08:57:52AM +0100, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> On Montag, 10. Januar 2011 Dave Chinner wrote:
> > This patch uses 32-way threading which results in no noticable
> > slowdown on single SATA drives with NCQ, but results in ~10x
> > reduction in runtime on a 12 disk RAID-0 array.
>
> Is the fixed 32-way number reasonable, or shouldn't that be "number of
> available cpu cores"-way? Why threading when you have a single core cpu?
Sure, 32-way is reasonable on a single disk and CPU. Pretty much
every sata disk supports NCQ these days, and default to a depth of
32, which means we can have 32 concurrent reads in progress at once.
Phase 2 is all synchronous IO, so the only way to hide the IO
latency is to queue work to multiple threads and switch between the
threadsto work on another queue when the current one blocks waiting
for IO.
Basically the threading being used to drive IO level concurrency,
not to drive CPU level concurrency - the total CPU usage of phase 2
is less than what even a slow CPU can provide, so to keep it busy we
need lots of concurrent IO streams in progress at once...
And if you want to change it, there's a command line option for it.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-10 8:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-10 0:44 [PATCH] xfs_repair: multithread phase 2 Dave Chinner
2011-01-10 7:57 ` Michael Monnerie
2011-01-10 8:41 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2011-01-10 13:25 ` Michael Monnerie
2011-01-10 19:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-10 19:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-10 21:53 ` Matthias Schniedermeyer
2011-01-10 18:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-02-01 23:39 ` Alex Elder
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-01-04 6:13 Dave Chinner
2011-01-04 10:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-01-04 12:00 ` Dave Chinner
2011-01-05 23:42 ` Alex Elder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110110084122.GF28803@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox