Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:56:24 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Increasing MAXPHYS Message-ID: <36866.1269334584@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:36:07 %2B0100." <20100322233607.GB1767@garage.freebsd.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20100322233607.GB1767@garage.freebsd.pl>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek write s: >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) Uhm, that way you get _more_ context switches than today, today g_down will typically push the requests all the way down through the stack without a context switch. (Similar for g_up) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36866.1269334584>