From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, Linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Two blk-mq related topics
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:46:23 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517269583.3969.53.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc833da8-f9de-d577-e1d3-c46d8c061d35@kernel.dk>
On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 14:00 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/29/18 1:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 23:46 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > 2. When to enable SCSI_MQ at default again?
> >
> > I'm not sure there's much to discuss ... I think the basic answer
> > is as soon as Christoph wants to try it again.
>
> FWIW, internally I've been running various IO intensive workloads on
> what is essentially 4.12 upstream with scsi-mq the default (with
> mq-deadline as the scheduler) and comparing IO workloads with a
> previous 4.6 kernel (without scsi-mq), and things are looking
> great.
>
> We're never going to iron out the last kinks with it being off
> by default, I think we should attempt to flip the switch again
> for 4.16.
Absolutely, I agree we turn it on ASAP. I just don't want to be on the
receiving end of Linus' flamethrower because a bug we already had
reported against scsi-mq caused problems. Get confirmation from the
original reporters (or as close to it as you can) that their problems
are fixed and we're good to go; he won't kick us nearly as hard for new
bugs that turn up.
James
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com (James Bottomley)
Subject: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Two blk-mq related topics
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:46:23 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1517269583.3969.53.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fc833da8-f9de-d577-e1d3-c46d8c061d35@kernel.dk>
On Mon, 2018-01-29@14:00 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/29/18 1:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2018-01-29@23:46 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > [...]
> > >
> > > 2. When to enable SCSI_MQ at default again?
> >
> > I'm not sure there's much to discuss ... I think the basic answer
> > is as soon as Christoph wants to try it again.
>
> FWIW, internally I've been running various IO intensive workloads on
> what is essentially 4.12 upstream with scsi-mq the default (with
> mq-deadline as the scheduler) and comparing IO workloads with a
> previous 4.6 kernel (without scsi-mq), and things are looking
> great.
>
> We're never going to iron out the last kinks with it being off
> by default, I think we should attempt to flip the switch again
> for 4.16.
Absolutely, I agree we turn it on ASAP. ?I just don't want to be on the
receiving end of Linus' flamethrower because a bug we already had
reported against scsi-mq caused problems. ?Get confirmation from the
original reporters (or as close to it as you can) that their problems
are fixed and we're good to go; he won't kick us nearly as hard for new
bugs that turn up.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-29 23:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-29 15:46 [LSF/MM TOPIC] Two blk-mq related topics Ming Lei
2018-01-29 15:46 ` Ming Lei
2018-01-29 20:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-01-29 20:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-01-30 1:27 ` [Lsf-pc] " Ming Lei
2018-01-30 1:27 ` Ming Lei
2018-01-30 1:27 ` Ming Lei
2018-01-29 20:56 ` James Bottomley
2018-01-29 20:56 ` James Bottomley
2018-01-29 21:00 ` Jens Axboe
2018-01-29 21:00 ` Jens Axboe
2018-01-29 23:46 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2018-01-29 23:46 ` James Bottomley
2018-01-30 1:47 ` Jens Axboe
2018-01-30 1:47 ` Jens Axboe
2018-01-30 10:08 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-01-30 10:08 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-01-30 10:08 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-01-30 10:50 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-30 10:50 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-30 1:24 ` Ming Lei
2018-01-30 1:24 ` Ming Lei
2018-01-30 8:33 ` [Lsf-pc] " Martin Steigerwald
2018-01-30 8:33 ` Martin Steigerwald
2018-01-30 8:33 ` Martin Steigerwald
2018-01-30 10:33 ` John Garry
2018-01-30 10:33 ` John Garry
2018-01-30 10:33 ` John Garry
2018-02-07 10:55 ` John Garry
2018-02-07 10:55 ` John Garry
2018-02-07 10:55 ` John Garry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1517269583.3969.53.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
--to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=Linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.