| To: | Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: multithread phase 2 |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:18:26 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <201101101425.48134@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <1294620248-17098-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201101100857.53421@xxxxxx> <20110110084122.GF28803@dastard> <201101101425.48134@xxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 02:25:47PM +0100, Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Montag, 10. Januar 2011 Dave Chinner wrote: > > Pretty much > > every sata disk supports NCQ these days, and default to a depth of > > 32, which means we can have 32 concurrent reads in progress at once. > > Phase 2 is all synchronous IO, so the only way to hide the IO > > latency is to queue work to multiple threads and switch between the > > threadsto work on another queue when the current one blocks waiting > > for IO. > > This is interesting. Did you measure this with a rotating single disk? Take a look at the patch description. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: multithread phase 2, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 1/8] xfs: ensure sync write errors are returned, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: multithread phase 2, Michael Monnerie |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: multithread phase 2, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |