[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 02/11] block: kill QUEUE_ORDERED_BY_TAG
- From: Christoph Hellwig <hch lst de>
- To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst vlnb net>
- Cc: jack suse cz, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst redhat com>, linux-ide vger kernel org, dm-devel redhat com, James Bottomley suse de, konishi ryusuke lab ntt co jp, hch lst de, linux-scsi vger kernel org, Christoph Hellwig <hch infradead org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin kernel dk>, Chris Wright <chrisw sous-sol org>, Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>, swhiteho redhat com, chris mason oracle com, linux-raid vger kernel org, tytso mit edu, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy xensource com>, jaxboe fusionio com, linux-kernel vger kernel org, linux-fsdevel vger kernel org, rwheeler redhat com
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 02/11] block: kill QUEUE_ORDERED_BY_TAG
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:06:57 +0200
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:56:32PM +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Tejun Heo, on 08/12/2010 04:41 PM wrote:
> >Nobody is making meaningful use of ORDERED_BY_TAG now and queue
> >draining for barrier requests will be removed soon which will render
> >the advantage of tag ordering moot.
>
> Have you seen Hannes Reinecke's and my measurements in
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=128110662528485&w=2 and
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=128111995217405&w=2 correspondingly?
>
> If yes, what else evidences do you need to see that the tag ordering is
> a big performance win?
It's not tag odering that is a win but big queue depth. That's what you
measured and what I fully agree on. I haven't been able to get out of
Hannes what he actually measured.
And if you'd actually look at the patchset allowing deep queues is
exactly what it allows us, and while I haven't done testing on this
patchset but only on my previous version it does get us back to use
the full potential of large arrays exactly because of that.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]