There's no need to use delayed work, convert to use work_struct and
cancel_work_sync().
Requested-by: Tejun Heo
Signed-off-by: Xiaotian Feng
Cc: Neela Syam Kolli
Cc: "James E.J. Bottomley"
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
---
drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas.h
On 12/11/12 23:46, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
I would be curious to see what kind of results you would get with scsi_debug
with fake_rw=1. I am sort of suspecting that trying to put an "upper limit"
on scsi LLD IOPS performance by seeing what scsi_debug will do with fake_rw=1
is not real
On 12/11/12 01:00, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
The driver, like nvme, has a submit and reply queue per cpu.
This is interesting. If my interpretation of the POSIX spec is correct
then aio_write() allows to queue overlapping writes and all writes
submitted by the same thread have to be
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 04:22:33PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/11/12 01:00, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> >The driver, like nvme, has a submit and reply queue per cpu.
>
> This is interesting. If my interpretation of the POSIX spec is correct
> then aio_write() allows to queue ov
On 12/13/12 18:25, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 04:22:33PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 12/11/12 01:00, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
The driver, like nvme, has a submit and reply queue per cpu.
This is interesting. If my interpretation of the POSIX spec
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:47:14PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> From my experience with block and SCSI drivers option (1) doesn't
> look attractive from a performance point of view. From what I have
> seen performance with QD=1 is several times lower than performance
> with QD > 1. But maybe I o
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:40:27PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/11/12 23:46, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> >I would be curious to see what kind of results you would get with
> >scsi_debug
> >with fake_rw=1. I am sort of suspecting that trying to put an "upper
> >limit"
> >on scsi
On 12/13/12 19:03, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
What are your system specs?
A quad core Intel i5-2400 @ 3.10 GHz.
taskset -c "$cpu" dd if="$device" of=/dev/null bs=4k iflag=direct
Please use fio instead of dd for any serious performance measurements.
dd doesn't even guarantee
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:47:14PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/13/12 18:25, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 04:22:33PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >>On 12/11/12 01:00, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> >>>The driver, like nvme, has a submit and reply q
On 12/13/12 18:25, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 04:22:33PM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 12/11/12 01:00, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
>>> The driver, like nvme, has a submit and reply queue per cpu.
>>
>> This is interesting. If my interpretation of the P
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> The ROM address handling in gdth_init_pci() is useless and possibly
> dangerous. This patch removes it.
>
> "pci_resource_start(pdev, 8)" is not well-defined. PCI resources 0-5 are
> standard PCI BARs and 6 is the expansion ROM. Resource 8
于 2012年12月10日 16:02, Chris Boot 写道:
> On 10/12/12 02:39, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Hello Chris Boot:
>>
>> need I send the relative patch ?
>
> Hi Chen,
>
> Sorry, life got in the way this weekend. I'll try to get the patch sent
> out today.
>
Have you sent ?
I am already in linux-scsi@vger.ke
Steve,
Thanks for share detail of your problem.
Yes you re right about test I talk. Now I know what you want to discuss on
this thread.
Jack
Right, but if I understand you correctly, you're ganging up 24 device queues
and measuring aggregate iops across them all. That is, you have 24 SAS
disk
On Dec 14 Chen Gang wrote:
> 于 2012年12月10日 16:02, Chris Boot 写道:
> > On 10/12/12 02:39, Chen Gang wrote:
> >> Hello Chris Boot:
> >>
> >> need I send the relative patch ?
> >
> > Hi Chen,
> >
> > Sorry, life got in the way this weekend. I'll try to get the patch sent
> > out today.
> >
>
>
于 2012年12月14日 14:57, Stefan Richter 写道:
> On Dec 14 Chen Gang wrote:
>> 于 2012年12月10日 16:02, Chris Boot 写道:
>>> On 10/12/12 02:39, Chen Gang wrote:
Hello Chris Boot:
need I send the relative patch ?
>>>
>>> Hi Chen,
>>>
>>> Sorry, life got in the way this weekend. I'll try to get t
15 matches
Mail list logo