On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 06:03:54PM +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
> Previously, we only offer a single iovec to handle all the read/write cases,
> so
> the PREADV/PWRITEV request always need to alloc more iovec buffer when copying
> user vectors.
> If we use a tmp iovec array rather than the single one, s
Hi Jeff,
On 07/23/2014 09:25 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Gu Zheng writes:
>
>> Previously, we only offer a single iovec to handle all the read/write cases,
>> so
>> the PREADV/PWRITEV request always need to alloc more iovec buffer when
>> copying
>> user vectors.
>> If we use a tmp iovec array rat
Gu Zheng writes:
> Previously, we only offer a single iovec to handle all the read/write cases,
> so
> the PREADV/PWRITEV request always need to alloc more iovec buffer when copying
> user vectors.
> If we use a tmp iovec array rather than the single one, some small
> PREADV/PWRITEV
> workloads
Hi Jeff,
On 07/22/2014 11:20 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Gu Zheng writes:
>
>> use an iovec array rather than the single one, so that we can avoid
>> to alloc more iovecs buffer in small(< 8) PREADV/PWRITEV cases.
>
> I did some basic functional testing of this change and the change in
> patch 1/4.
Gu Zheng writes:
> use an iovec array rather than the single one, so that we can avoid
> to alloc more iovecs buffer in small(< 8) PREADV/PWRITEV cases.
I did some basic functional testing of this change and the change in
patch 1/4. That testing included using aio-stress to drive queue depths
o
Gu Zheng writes:
> use an iovec array rather than the single one, so that we can avoid
> to alloc more iovecs buffer in small(< 8) PREADV/PWRITEV cases.
It would be helpful to know what motivated this change and how you
tested it.
Thanks,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "un
6 matches
Mail list logo
