From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263802AbUEGWA2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2004 18:00:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263804AbUEGWA2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2004 18:00:28 -0400 Received: from fmr03.intel.com ([143.183.121.5]:58334 "EHLO hermes.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263802AbUEGWAY (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2004 18:00:24 -0400 Message-Id: <200405072200.i47M0AF00868@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Jens Axboe'" Cc: "'Andrew Morton'" , Subject: RE: Cache queue_congestion_on/off_threshold Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 15:00:10 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcQ0FzE+87kn5u68RLiIcctTfFmIfwAZvcuQ In-Reply-To: <20040507093921.GD21109@suse.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>> Jens Axboe wrote on Friday, May 07, 2004 2:39 AM > On Thu, May 06 2004, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > > (3) can we allocate request structure up front in __make_request? > > For I/O that cannot be merged, the elevator code executes twice > > in __make_request. > > > > Actually, with the good working batching we might get away with killing > freereq completely. Have you tested that (if not, could you?) Sorry, I'm clueless on "good working batching". If you could please give me some pointers, I will definitely test it. - Ken