Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 08:23:43AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <4BA633A0.2090108_at_icyb.net.ua>, Andriy Gapon writes: >>> on 21/03/2010 16:05 Alexander Motin said the following: >>>> Ivan Voras wrote: >>>>> Hmm, it looks like it could be easy to spawn more g_* threads (and, >>>>> barring specific class behaviour, it has a fair chance of working out of >>>>> the box) but the incoming queue will need to also be broken up for >>>>> greater effect. >>>> According to "notes", looks there is a good chance to obtain races, as >>>> some places expect only one up and one down thread. >>> I haven't given any deep thought to this issue, but I remember us discussing >>> them over beer :-) >> The easiest way to obtain more parallelism, is to divide the mesh into >> multiple independent meshes. >> >> This will do you no good if you have five disks in a RAID-5 config, but >> if you have two disks each mounted on its own filesystem, you can run >> a g_up & g_down for each of them. > > A class is suppose to interact with other classes only via GEOM, so I > think it should be safe to choose g_up/g_down threads for each class > individually, for example: > > /dev/ad0s1a (DEV) > | > g_up_0 + g_down_0 > | > ad0s1a (BSD) > | > g_up_1 + g_down_1 > | > ad0s1 (MBR) > | > g_up_2 + g_down_2 > | > ad0 (DISK) > > We could easly calculate g_down thread based on bio_to->geom->class and > g_up thread based on bio_from->geom->class, so we know I/O requests for > our class are always coming from the same threads. > > If we could make the same assumption for geoms it would allow for even > better distribution. doesn't really help my problem however.. I just want to access the base provider directly with no geom thread involved. >Received on Mon Mar 22 2010 - 23:33:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:02 UTC