From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] 4GB I/O, 2nd edition
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:20:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010528232031.P9102@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010528175940.M9102@suse.de> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105281546010.1261-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105281546010.1261-100000@freak.distro.conectiva>; from marcelo@conectiva.com.br on Mon, May 28, 2001 at 03:48:28PM -0300
On Mon, May 28 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > One minor bug found that would possibly oops if the SCSI pool ran out of
> > memory for the sg table and had to revert to a single segment request.
> > This should never happen, as the pool is sized after number of devices
> > and queue depth -- but it needed fixing anyway.
> >
> > Other changes:
> >
> > - Support cpqarray and cciss (two separate patches)
> >
> > - Cleanup IDE DMA on/off wrt highmem
> >
> > - Move run_task_queue back again in __wait_on_buffer. Need to look at
> > why this hurts performance.
>
> It decrease performance of what in which way ?
Initial dbench testing on a 3.5gb box showed a decrease in performance.
Which did not make sense to me, since there would be no reason to run
tq_disk if the buffer is not locked as is. In fact, I would have
expected this small change to increase performance slightly (which is
why I did it of course), we would be able to build longer queues. I
didn't do any queue monitoring, but I noted that __make_request scan
times were _smaller_ with this change. Which really doesn't make sense
at all :-)
So I'm suspecting a weird mm interaction, I'll drop more info as I find
out. Unfortunately I've been disconnected from above box since this
afternoon, so haven't been able to test since...
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-05-28 21:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-05-28 15:59 [patch] 4GB I/O, 2nd edition Jens Axboe
2001-05-28 18:48 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2001-05-28 21:20 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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=20010528232031.P9102@suse.de \
--to=axboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo@conectiva.com.br \
/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