From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751484AbaHOOcs (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:32:48 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:54872 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221AbaHOOcq (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:32:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140815131137.GA31079@infradead.org> References: <1408031441-31156-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <53ECE998.8070407@kernel.dk> <20140815131137.GA31079@infradead.org> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 22:32:43 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] block & aio: kernel aio and loop mq conversion From: Ming Lei To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Dave Kleikamp , Zach Brown , Benjamin LaHaise , Kent Overstreet , "open list:AIO" , Linux FS Devel , Dave Chinner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/15/14, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 08:59:56PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> Your concern is right, previous I thought that mq conversion wouldn't >> improve >> throughput, but I did ignore workqueue's concurrency management, it >> turns out blk-mq conversion can improvment throughput close to 10 times >> in >> my test(loop over virtio-blk which is backed by one image on SSD). It is >> like >> POSIX style AIO after mq conversion thanks to workqueue, and I need to >> update the performance data in V2. >> >> Actually kernel AIO needn't such high concurrency. > > Can you juse send a loop blk-mq conversion for now? I think that's OK. > a bit less controversial than the new kernel aio APIs, and keeping the > two separate is a good idea in general. Exactly, the two should be perfect pair for loop block, IMO. Thanks, -- Ming Lei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ming Lei Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] block & aio: kernel aio and loop mq conversion Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 22:32:43 +0800 Message-ID: References: <1408031441-31156-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <53ECE998.8070407@kernel.dk> <20140815131137.GA31079@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Jens Axboe , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Dave Kleikamp , Zach Brown , Benjamin LaHaise , Kent Overstreet , "open list:AIO" , Linux FS Devel , Dave Chinner To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140815131137.GA31079@infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 8/15/14, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 08:59:56PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> Your concern is right, previous I thought that mq conversion wouldn't >> improve >> throughput, but I did ignore workqueue's concurrency management, it >> turns out blk-mq conversion can improvment throughput close to 10 times >> in >> my test(loop over virtio-blk which is backed by one image on SSD). It is >> like >> POSIX style AIO after mq conversion thanks to workqueue, and I need to >> update the performance data in V2. >> >> Actually kernel AIO needn't such high concurrency. > > Can you juse send a loop blk-mq conversion for now? I think that's OK. > a bit less controversial than the new kernel aio APIs, and keeping the > two separate is a good idea in general. Exactly, the two should be perfect pair for loop block, IMO. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org