Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751563AbbAAAwx (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:52:53 -0500 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:46193 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751208AbbAAAww (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:52:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1374774659-13121-1-git-send-email-dave.kleikamp@oracle.com> <54A4703B.2000006@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 08:52:49 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 00/33] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio_vec From: Ming Lei To: sedat.dilek@gmail.com Cc: Dave Kleikamp , LKML , linux-fsdevel , Andrew Morton , "Maxim V. Patlasov" , Zach Brown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2146 Lines: 55 On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Dave Kleikamp > wrote: >> On 12/31/2014 02:38 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: >>> >>> What has happened to that aio_loop patchset? >>> Is it in Linux-next? >>> ( /me started to play with "block: loop: convert to blk-mq (v3)", so I >>> recalled this other improvement. ) >> >> It met with some harsh resistance, so I backed off on it. Then Al Viro >> got busy re-writing the iov_iter infrastructure and I put my patchset on >> the shelf to look at later. Then Ming Lei submitted more up-to-date >> patchset: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/6/175 >> >> It looks like Ming is currently only pushing the first half of that >> patchset. I don't know what his plans are for the last three patches: >> >> aio: add aio_kernel_() interface >> fd/direct-io: introduce should_dirty for kernel aio >> block: loop: support to submit I/O via kernel aio based >> > > I tested with block-mq-v3 (for next-20141231) [1] and this looks promising [2]. > > Maybe Ming can say what the plan is with the missing parts. I have compared kernel aio based loop-mq(the other 3 aio patches against loop-mq v2, [1]) with loop-mq v3, looks the data isn't better than loop-mq v3. kernel aio based approach requires direct I/O, at least direct write shouldn't be good as page cache write, IMO. So I think we need to investigate kernel aio based approach further wrt. loop improvement. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=140941494422520&w=2 Thanks, Ming Lei > > - Sedat - > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142003226701471&w=2 > [2]http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=142006516408381&w=2 > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/