Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932271AbYBHIdS (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 03:33:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932747AbYBHIdF (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 03:33:05 -0500 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:42700 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761704AbYBHIdD (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Feb 2008 03:33:03 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 09:33:02 +0100 From: Nick Piggin To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan.Brunelle@hp.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, dgc@sgi.com Subject: Re: IO queuing and complete affinity with threads (was Re: [PATCH 0/8] IO queuing and complete affinity) Message-ID: <20080208083302.GI9730@wotan.suse.de> References: <1202375945-29525-1-git-send-email-jens.axboe@oracle.com> <20080207182544.GM15220@kernel.dk> <20080208073859.GE9730@wotan.suse.de> <20080208074747.GY15220@kernel.dk> <20080208075324.GG9730@wotan.suse.de> <20080208075954.GA15220@kernel.dk> <20080208081226.GH9730@wotan.suse.de> <20080208082422.GB15220@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080208082422.GB15220@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1284 Lines: 28 On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:24:22AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 08 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > And if you don't? > > > > > > Well if you don't ask for anything, you wont get anything :-) > > > As I mentioned, the patch is a playing ground for trying various setups. > > > Everything defaults to 'do as usual', set options to setup certain test > > > scenarios. > > > > I mean if you don't know the completing CPU. > > I still don't know quite what part of that patch you are referring to > here. If you don't have queue_affinity set, queueing a new request with > the hardware is generally done on the same CPU that just completed a > request. That is true even without any patches. Generally, but I guess not always. The database workloads in question (which you might know very well about ;)) apparently has a lot of queue empty and unplug conditions. Which I guess is the reason for Intel's initial patch. -- 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/