From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Moyer Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] block: Change default IO scheduler to deadline except SATA
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:56:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F848253.6060303@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120410185318.GL21801@redhat.com>
On 2012-04-10 20:53, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:41:08PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> [..]
>>> So we are back to the question of can scsi devices find out if a Lun
>>> is backed by single disk or multiple disks.
>>
>> The cleanest would be to have the driver signal these attributes at
>> probe time. You could even adjust CFQ properties based on this, driving
>> the queue depth harder etc. Realistically, going forward, most fast
>> flash devices will be driven by a noop-like scheduler on multiqueue. So
>> CPU cost of the IO scheduler can mostly be ignored, since CFQ cost on
>> even big RAIDs isn't an issue due to the low IOPS rates.
>
> Agreed that on RAID CPU cost is not a problem. Just that idling and low
> queue depth kills the performance.
Exactly, and both of these are trivially adjustable as long as we know
when to do it.
> So apart from "rotational" if driver can give some hints about underlying
> devices being RAID (or multi device), it will help. Just that it looks
> like scsi does not have a way to determine that.
This sort of thing should be done with a udev rule. It should not be too
hard to match for the most popular arrays, catching the majority of the
setups by default. Or you could ask the SCSI folks for some heuristics,
it's not unlikely that a few different attributes could make that bullet
proof, pretty much.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-10 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-10 13:37 [RFC PATCH] block: Change default IO scheduler to deadline except SATA Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 13:56 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-10 14:21 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 15:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 16:13 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-04-10 17:28 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 17:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-04-10 18:36 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-11 16:25 ` Martin K. Petersen
2012-04-10 18:41 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-10 18:53 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 18:56 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2012-04-10 19:11 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-04-10 19:19 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-10 19:43 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-04-10 19:55 ` Jens Axboe
2012-04-10 20:12 ` Mike Snitzer
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-04-10 17:44 Xose Vazquez Perez
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=4F848253.6060303@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@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.