Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1702546
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] z3fold: use per-cpu unbuddied lists |
| Date | 2017-08-03 01:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uaaW5-8aH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <u9Z4D-aO-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 2 Aug 2017 12:25:05 +0200 Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> wrote: > z3fold is operating on unbuddied lists in a simple manner: in fact, > it only takes the first entry off the list on a hot path. So if the > z3fold pool is big enough and balanced well enough, considering > only the lists local to the current CPU won't be an issue in any > way, while random I/O performance will go up. Has the performance benefit been measured? It's a large patch. > This patch also introduces two worker threads which: one for async > in-page object layout optimization and one for releasing freed > pages. Why? What are the runtime effects of this change? Does this turn currently-synchronous operations into now-async operations? If so, what are the implications of this if, say, the workqueue doesn't get serviced for a while? etc. Sorry, but I'm not seeing anywhere near enough information and testing results to justify merging such a large and intrusive patch.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] z3fold: use per-cpu unbuddied lists Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 12:30 +0200 Re: [PATCH] z3fold: use per-cpu unbuddied lists kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com> - 2017-08-02 16:00 +0200 Re: [PATCH] z3fold: use per-cpu unbuddied lists Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-08-03 01:10 +0200
csiph-web