From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
"ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
James Smart <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com" <scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com>,
"kmo@daterainc.com" <kmo@daterainc.com>,
target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] scsi-mq prototype discussion
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:34:15 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130722163415.GV32755@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51E946C7.3020502@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jul 19 2013, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> down the work items ahead of a real mainline push is high on
> >>>>>>>>priority list for discussion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The parties to be included in such a discussion are:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Jens Axboe (blk-mq author)
> >>>>>>>> - James Bottomley (scsi maintainer)
> >>>>>>>> - Christoph Hellwig (scsi)
> >>>>>>>> - Martin Petersen (scsi)
> >>>>>>>> - Tejun Heo (block + libata)
> >>>>>>>> - Hannes Reinecke (scsi error recovery)
> >>>>>>>> - Kent Overstreet (block, per-cpu ida)
> >>>>>>>> - Stephen Cameron (scsi-over-pcie driver)
> >>>>>>>> - Andrew Vasquez (qla2xxx LLD)
> >>>>>>>> - James Smart (lpfc LLD)
> >>>>>>>Isn't this something that should have been discussed at the storage
> >>>>>>>mini-summit a few months ago?
> >>>>>>The scsi-mq prototype, along with blk-mq (in it's current form) did not
> >>>>>>exist a few short months ago. ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It seems very specific to one subsystem to be a kernel summit topic,
> >>>>>>>don't you think?
> >>>>>>It's no more subsystem specific than half of the other proposals so far,
> >>>>>>and given it's reach across multiple subsystems (block, scsi, target),
> >>>>>>and the amount of off-list interest on the topic, I think it would make
> >>>>>>a good candidate for discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>And it'll open up new approaches which previously were dismissed,
> >>>>>like re-implementing multipathing on top of scsi-mq, giving us the
> >>>>>single scsi device like other UNIX systems.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Also I do think there's quite some synergy to be had, as with blk-mq
> >>>>>we could nail each queue to a processor, which would eliminate the
> >>>>>need for locking.
> >>>>>Which could be useful for other subsystems, too.
> >>>>Lets start with discussing this on the list, please, and then see where
> >>>>we go from there ...
> >>>>
> >>>Yes, the discussion is beginning to make it's way to the list. I've
> >>>mostly been waiting for blk-mq to get a wider review before taking the
> >>>early scsi-mq prototype driver to a larger public audience.
> >>>
> >>>Primarily, I'm now reaching out to the people most effected by existing
> >>>scsi_request_fn() based performance limitations. Most of them have
> >>>abandoned existing scsi_request_fn() based logic in favor of raw block
> >>>make_request() based drivers, and are now estimating the amount of
> >>>effort to move to an scsi-mq based approach.
> >>>
> >>>Regardless, as the prototype progresses over the next months, having a
> >>>face-to-face discussion with the key parties in the room would be very
> >>>helpful given the large amount of effort involved to actually make this
> >>>type of generational shift in SCSI actually happen.
> >>There's a certain amount of overlap with the aio/O_DIRECT work as well.
> >>But if it's not a general session, could always be a BOF or something.
> >>
> >>I'll second the argument that most technical topics probably DO belong
> >>in a topic related workshop. But that leaves us with basically only
> >>process related topics at KS, I don't think it hurts to have a bit of
> >>tech meat on the bone too. At least I personally miss that part of KS
> >>from years gone by.
> >Heh well, given that most of the block mq discussions at LSF have been
> >you saying you really should get around to cleaning up and posting the
> >code, you'll understand my wanting to see that happen first ...
> >
> >I suppose we could try to run a storage workshop within KS, but I think
> >most of the mini summit slots have already gone. There's also plumbers
> >if all slots are gone (I would say that, being biased and on the
> >programme committee) Ric is running the storage and Filesystems MC
> >
> >http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2013/ocw/events/LPC2013/tracks/159
> >
> >James
> >
>
> And we still are looking for suggested topics - it would be great to have
> the multi-queue work at plumbers.
>
> You can post a proposal for it (or other topics) here:
>
> http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2013/ocw/events/LPC2013/proposals
FWIW, I can't make Plumbers this year, unfortunately.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-22 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-12 0:23 [ATTEND] scsi-mq prototype discussion Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-12 1:02 ` [Ksummit-2013-discuss] " Greg KH
2013-07-12 1:33 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-12 10:52 ` Hannes Reinecke
2013-07-13 6:53 ` James Bottomley
2013-07-16 21:07 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-16 21:15 ` Jens Axboe
2013-07-17 4:52 ` James Bottomley
2013-07-19 14:01 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-07-22 16:34 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2013-07-19 21:22 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-19 21:46 ` James Bottomley
2013-07-19 22:06 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-16 22:19 ` scameron
2013-11-29 14:08 ` scsi-mq prototype Bart Van Assche
2013-12-09 21:05 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
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=20130722163415.GV32755@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=James.Smart@Emulex.Com \
--cc=andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=kmo@daterainc.com \
--cc=ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rwheeler@redhat.com \
--cc=scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com \
--cc=target-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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.