From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751691Ab2LJR7j (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:59:39 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17938 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751310Ab2LJR7h (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:59:37 -0500 From: Jeff Moyer To: JBottomley@parallels.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, JBottomley@parallels.com, Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: [patch,v3,repost 00/10] make I/O path allocations more numa-friendly References: <1354034799-8460-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> X-PGP-KeyID: 1F78E1B4 X-PGP-CertKey: F6FE 280D 8293 F72C 65FD 5A58 1FF8 A7CA 1F78 E1B4 X-PCLoadLetter: What the f**k does that mean? Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:59:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1354034799-8460-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> (Jeff Moyer's message of "Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:46:28 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeff Moyer writes: > Hi, > > This patch set makes memory allocations for data structures used in > the I/O path more numa friendly by allocating them from the same numa > node as the storage device. I've only converted a handful of drivers > at this point. My testing is limited by the hardware I have on hand. > Using these patches, I was able to max out the bandwidth of the storage > controller when issuing I/O from any node on my 4 node system. Without > the patch, I/O from nodes remote to the storage device would suffer a > penalty ranging from 6-12%. Given my relatively low-end setup[1], I > wouldn't be surprised if others could show a more significant performance > advantage. > > This is a repost of the last posting. The only changes are additional > reviewed-by/acked-by tags. I think this version is ready for inclusion. > James, would you mind taking a look? James? Do you have any objections to including this for 3.8? -Jeff