From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <e@80x24.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN:  
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,
	DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF shortcircuit=no
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1])
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2971F4CC;
	Sun, 15 Dec 2024 00:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=80x24.org;
	s=selector1; t=1734223793;
	bh=itdbqi/LJW2IIE/rWTcXWDER96TazGJWPWOQjebAC24=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From;
	b=wJj3Zj/qpiO7jFCMJosBoO/5Rt5BRSZKrLae9MqQj8aZBO26lvj81PePxROJqh1J5
	 bM64mhz0H5Qf+DUjB1qYjZUS+ExFC/DZdOfcfYweHCgnRl0NkLXM660c0HWKfjXtpi
	 +ArjL9dQPezBF0LzzegVgxe9pqBkME0FYSZne1n0=
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 00:49:53 +0000
From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
To: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>
Cc: meta@public-inbox.org, infra@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: public-inbox skipping new inboxes or many mails
Message-ID: <20241215004953.M337494@dcvr>
References: <robbat2-20240715T053654-315499756Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
 <20240715210340.M929931@dcvr>
 <robbat2-20240715T213134-641912326Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
 <20240715235808.M590962@dcvr>
 <robbat2-20240716T053306-019353707Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
 <20240716190550.M242334@dcvr>
 <robbat2-20240717T025915-124684207Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <robbat2-20240717T025915-124684207Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
List-Id: <meta.public-inbox.org>

"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> dev-perl/Linux-Inotify2 will be up to date. No guarantees that the
> kernel is up to date - some legacy boxes at sponsors are pretty crufty
> and have been unsafe to reboot to new kernels when we lack any OOB
> management access: to that end, public-inbox's responsiveness is amazing
> even running on a 10+ year old RAID1 HDD spinner setup.

Btw, are the kernels on those machines too old for io_uring?

I've been considering adding st_dev-aware parallelism for
HDDs(*), but I'd imagine an io_uring-capable kernel could be
better than userspace trying to divide tasks based on
(st_dev|mountpoint) since it's possible to have multiple
mountpoints pointing to the same physical device...

Also, would those old machines also benefit from forking to
parallelize the userspace CPU use?  I wouldn't mind combining
both io_uring AND forking to take advantage of SMP, of course.

(*) st_dev-aware parallelism works well in my experience with HDDs
    in a different project, but I also didn't have multiple
    active mountpoints pointing to the same physical device.