On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:06:19 -0700 Eivind Sarto <eivindsarto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ignore previous email. Forgot to attach patch. > > This is a trivial patch that improves rebuild/resync speed of raid5 arrays. > Instead of having the resync-thread handle the stripe, it now just sets STRIPE_HANDLE and > releases the stripe. Allowing the resync-thread to return immediately and schedule more operations. > > The speedup will increase with more drives in the array. And it will increase further if additional > kworker threads are enabled. But, it improves with just the default raid5d() running. > > Note: I posted this patch a while back, but nothing happened. Not accepted, not rejected. > > Trying one more time. > > -eivind I looked through my mail and found you posted much the same patch on 11th February. I replied as below. You never resent (or if you did, I never got it). You did reply with some numbers, but that isn't the same as resubmitting the patch with a proper description at the top. Your new patch does mention some performance numbers in the comment so that I a lot better. I've applied it. Thanks, NeilBrown Hi, thanks for the patch. When you include a patch as an attachment, I find it easier to work with if it is "text/plain" rather than "application/octet-stream". As your patch is justified as a performance improvement, please include some measurements together with a rough description of the hardware (one or two sentences). Also, the performance improvement requires that multi-threading is enabled, which isn't the default. Please measure the effect of the patch when multi-threading not enabled. Maybe we should make the change you suggest be conditional on threading being enabled, but we can't know without numbers. Thanks, NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
