On Wed, May 30 2007, Zach Brown wrote:
> > Yeah, it'll confuse CFQ a lot actually. The threads either need to share
> > an io context (clean approach, however will introduce locking for things
> > that were previously lockless), or CFQ needs to get better support for
> > cooperating processes.
>
> Do let me know if I can be of any help in this.
Thanks, it should not be a lot of work though.
> > For the fio testing, we can make some improvements there. Right now you
> > don't get any concurrency of the io requests if you set eg iodepth=32,
> > as the 32 requests will be submitted as a linked chain of atoms. For io
> > saturation, that's not really what you want.
>
> Just to be clear: I'm currently focusing on supporting sys_io_*() so I'm
> using fio's libaio engine. I'm not testing the syslet syscall interface
> yet.
Ah ok, then there's no issue from that end!
--
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]
