[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [dm-devel] cmwq and dm-crypt devices?
- From: Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>
- To: Andi Kleen <andi firstfloor org>
- Cc: Christophe Saout <christophe saout de>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer redhat com>, Brian Swetland <swetland google com>, San Mehat <san google com>, device-mapper development <dm-devel redhat com>, Tejun Heo <tj kernel org>, Andrew Morton <akpm linux-foundation org>, Alasdair G Kergon <agk redhat com>, Milan Broz <mbroz redhat com>
- Subject: Re: [dm-devel] cmwq and dm-crypt devices?
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:18:35 +0000
On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 01:33:47PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Traditionally stacking didn't work very
> well in the kernel due to the limited kernel stack overflows.
> I don't think that's significantly different here.
Stacking in dm works reasonably well today and many people rely upon
that.
> Anyways stacking could be probably fixed, but it's also that 99.999999%
Please fix this regression the patch causes then or give some
fundamental arguments why we can't satisfy the two requirements
simultaneously: I just don't understand why it is necessary to cause a
regression in stacking/low memory support in order to provide the
performance boost in the way you desire. The two things ought to be
independent of each other.
(And I remain sceptical about the suitability of the patch even with a
stack of just two or three layers as I don't see anything in the failed
tests that shows why similar failures couldn't in principle affect
people with thinner stacks. The compromise I suggested was to amend the
patch to introduce the change only for non-stacked devices.)
Alasdair
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]