Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:Vladislav Bolkhovitin, on 04/02/2009 11:38 AM wrote:James Bottomley, on 04/02/2009 12:23 AM wrote:SCST explicitly fiddles with the io context to get this to happen. ItCorrect, although I wouldn't call it "fiddle", rather "grouping" ;)
has a hack to block to export alloc_io_context:
http://marc.info/?t=122893564800003
Call it what you like,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:Ross S. W. Walker, on 03/30/2009 10:33 PM wrote:
I would be interested in knowing how your code defeats CFQ's extremely
high latency? Does your code reach into the io scheduler too? If not,
some code hints would be great.
Hmm, CFQ doesn't have any extra processing latency, especially "extremely", hence there is nothing to defeat. If it had, how could it been chosen as the default?
----------
List: linux-scsi
Subject: [PATCH][RFC 13/23]: Export of alloc_io_context() function
From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst () vlnb ! net>
Date: 2008-12-10 18:49:19
Message-ID: 49400F2F.4050603 () vlnb ! net
This patch exports alloc_io_context() function. For performance reasons SCST queues commands using a pool of IO threads. It is considerably better for performance (>30% increase on sequential reads) if threads in a pool have the same IO context. Since SCST can be built as a module, it needs alloc_io_context() function exported.
<snip>
----------
I call that lying.
<snip>But that's not the only reason for good performance. Particularly, it can't explain Bart's tmpfs results from the previous message, where the majority of I/O done to/from RAM without any I/O scheduler involved. (Or does I/O scheduler also involved with tmpfs?) Bart has 4GB RAM, if I remember correctly, i.e. the test data set was 25% of RAM.To remove any suspicions that I'm playing dirty games here I should note
I don't know what games your playing at, but do me a favor, if your too
stupid enough to realize when your caught in a lie and to just shut up
then please do me the favor and leave me out of any further correspondence
from you.
Thank you,
-Ross