On Wed, Jan 03 2007, Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> > > Do you have any benchmarks which got faster with these changes?
> >
> > On the hardware I have immediately available, I see no regressions wrt
> > performance. With instrumentation it's simple to demonstrate that most
> > of the queueing activity of an io heavy benchmark spends less time in
> > the kernel (most merging activity takes place outside of the queue
> lock,
> > hence queueing is lock free).
> >
> > I've asked Ken to run this series on some of his big iron, I hope
> he'll
> > have some results for us soonish.
>
> We are having some trouble with the patch set that some of our fiber
> channel
> host controller doesn't initialize properly anymore and thus lost whole
> bunch
> of disks (somewhere around 200 disks out of 900) at boot time.
> Presumably FC
> loop initialization command are done through block layer etc. I haven't
> looked into the problem closely.
>
> Jens, I assume the spin lock bug in __blk_run_queue is fixed in this
> patch
> set?
It is. Are you still seeing problems after the initial mail exchange we
had prior to christmas, or are you referencing that initial problem?
It's not likely to be a block layer issue, more likely the SCSI <->
block interactions. If you mail me a new dmesg (if your problem is with
the __blk_run_queue() fixups), I can take a look. Otherwise please do
test with the __blk_run_queue() fixup, just use the current patchset.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
