Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Jan 2007 23:29:31 +0100 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 4/4 block: explicit plugging |
| |
On Wed, Jan 03 2007, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote on Wednesday, January 03, 2007 12:22 AM > > > Do you have any benchmarks which got faster with these changes? > > > > On the hardware I have immediately available, I see no regressions wrt > > performance. With instrumentation it's simple to demonstrate that most > > of the queueing activity of an io heavy benchmark spends less time in > > the kernel (most merging activity takes place outside of the queue > lock, > > hence queueing is lock free). > > > > I've asked Ken to run this series on some of his big iron, I hope > he'll > > have some results for us soonish. > > We are having some trouble with the patch set that some of our fiber > channel > host controller doesn't initialize properly anymore and thus lost whole > bunch > of disks (somewhere around 200 disks out of 900) at boot time. > Presumably FC > loop initialization command are done through block layer etc. I haven't > looked into the problem closely. > > Jens, I assume the spin lock bug in __blk_run_queue is fixed in this > patch > set?
It is. Are you still seeing problems after the initial mail exchange we had prior to christmas, or are you referencing that initial problem?
It's not likely to be a block layer issue, more likely the SCSI <-> block interactions. If you mail me a new dmesg (if your problem is with the __blk_run_queue() fixups), I can take a look. Otherwise please do test with the __blk_run_queue() fixup, just use the current patchset.
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |