Kent, On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:58:05AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:36:28AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote: >> >> Does this preserve the CPU from which the bio was submitted >> >> originally. Not familiar with cmwq, may be Tejun can clarify. >> >> >> >> Tejun - the question is, do we honor the rq_affinity with the above >> >> rescue worker implementation? >> > >> > The work item would run from the same CPU but there isn't any >> > mechanism to keep track of the issuing CPU if there are multiple bios >> > to be rescued. Isn't rq_affinity an optimization hint? If so, I >> > don't think it matters here. >> > >> >> Thanks... Just worried about performance impact. >> >> Kent - Anything to validate that the performance is not impacted would >> be really good. Otherwise, the patch looks great. > > Well - there'll only be any performance impact at all when we're memory > constrained enough that GFP_NOWAIT allocations fail, which for these > size allocations definitely isn't normal. Agreed. If we are in this situation, we are already running in degraded mode. So performance is not in question. Regards, Muthu -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
