On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:59 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 02/23/14 21:10, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Right ... my ideal here if we can achieve it would be lockless threaded
> > models, where we could make guarantees like single thread of execution
> > per command, so all command state could be
On 02/23/14 21:10, James Bottomley wrote:
> Right ... my ideal here if we can achieve it would be lockless threaded
> models, where we could make guarantees like single thread of execution
> per command, so all command state could be lockless.
This approach sounds interesting but could be challeng
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 02:10:18PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> If we can do this, that would be great, because it cuts down on the
> maintenance burden for all of us and gives some benefits at least to
> non-MQ hardware.
So far this seems to work out great, and I think we will be able to
stick
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 04:39 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We've run into many issues where the SCSI layer simply does not scale to
> keep up with today's hardware, be that in simple single-thread IOPs, or
> in lock contention when using multiple LUNs or targets under a single
> SCSI host. Thi
We've run into many issues where the SCSI layer simply does not scale to
keep up with today's hardware, be that in simple single-thread IOPs, or
in lock contention when using multiple LUNs or targets under a single
SCSI host. This proposal tries to draw a path how to fix this properly
and avoids w
5 matches
Mail list logo
