From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] max-sectors-2.6.9-rc1-bk14-A0
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 13:05:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040908110544.GI2258@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040908105415.GB5523@elte.hu>
On Wed, Sep 08 2004, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > Wasn't the move of the ide_lock grabbing enough to solve this problem
> > by itself?
>
> yes and no. It does solve it for the specific case of the
> voluntary-preemption patches: there hardirqs can run in separate kernel
> threads which are preemptable (no HARDIRQ_OFFSET). In stock Linux
> hardirqs are not preemptable so the earlier dropping of ide_lock doesnt
> solve the latency.
>
> so in the upstream kernel the only solution is to reduce the size of IO.
> (I'll push the hardirq patches later on too but their acceptance should
> not hinder people in achieving good latencies.) It can be useful for
> other reasons too to reduce IO, so why not? The patch certainly causes
> no overhead anywhere in the block layer and people are happy with it.
I'm not particularly against it, I was just curious. The splitting of
max_sectors into a max_hw_sectors is something we need to do anyways, so
I'm quite fine with the patch. You can add my signed-off-by too.
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-08 11:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-08 10:04 [patch] max-sectors-2.6.9-rc1-bk14-A0 Ingo Molnar
2004-09-08 10:09 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-08 10:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-08 11:43 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-08 12:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-08 10:17 ` Jens Axboe
2004-09-08 10:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-08 11:05 ` 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=20040908110544.GI2258@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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