Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:49:46PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
>>Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>>it does nothing w/ _exclusive and w/o the wake_up_nr, that's why I added
>>That is pretty pointless as well. You might as well just start
>>waking up at the queue full limit, and wake one at a time.
>>The purpose for batch_requests was I think for devices with a
>>very small request size, to reduce context switches.
>batch_requests at least in my tree matters only when each request is
>512btyes and you've some thousand of them to compose a 4M queue or so.
>To maximize cpu cache usage etc.. I try to wakeup a task every 512bytes
>written, but every 32*512bytes written or so. Of course w/o the
>wake_up_nr that I added, that wasn't really working w/ the _exlusive
>if you check my tree you'll see that for sequential I/O with 512k in
>each request (not 512bytes!) batch_requests is already a noop.
You are waking up multiple tasks which will each submit
1 request. You want to be waking up 1 task which will
submit multiple requests - that is how you will save
context switches, cpu cache, etc, and that task's requests
will have a much better chance of being merged, or at
least serviced as a nice batch than unrelated tasks.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:30 EST