On 12/7/06, Chen, Kenneth W <[email protected]> wrote:
Nate Diller wrote on Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:46 PM
> the current code is straightforward and obviously correct. you want
> to make the alloc/dealloc paths more complex, by special-casing for an
> arbitrary limit of "small" I/O, AFAICT. of *course* you can expect
> less overhead when you're doing one large I/O vs. two small ones,
> that's the whole reason we have all this code to try to coalesce
> contiguous I/O, do readahead, swap page clustering, etc. we *want*
> more complexity if it will get us bigger I/Os. I don't see why we
> want more complexity to reduce the *inherent* penalty of doing smaller
> ones.
You should check out the latest proposal from Jens Axboe which treats
all biovec size the same and stuff it along with struct bio. I think
it is a better approach than my first cut of special casing 1 segment
biovec. His patch will speed up all sized I/O.
i rather agree with his reservations on that, since we'd be making the
allocator's job harder by requesting order 1 pages for all allocations
on x86_64 large I/O patterns. but it reduces complexity instead of
increasing it ... can you produce some benchmarks not just for your
workload but for one that triggers the order 1 case? biovec-(256)
transfers are more common than you seem to think, and if the allocator
can't do it, that forces the bio code to fall back to 2 x biovec-128,
which, as you indicated above, would show a real penalty.
NATE
-
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]
