From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>, Ed Tsai <ed.tsai@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Improve shared tag set performance
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:09:09 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZTK0NcqB4lIQ_zHQ@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f2728de6-ff3c-4693-b51f-58c3d46d0fbf@acm.org>
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 09:45:53AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> On 10/20/23 09:25, Keith Busch wrote:
> > The legacy block request layer didn't have a tag resource shared among
> > multiple request queues. Each queue had their own mempool for allocating
> > requests. The mempool, I think, would always guarantee everyone could
> > get at least one request.
>
> I think that the above is irrelevant in this context. As an example, SCSI
> devices have always shared a pool of tags across multiple logical
> units. This behavior has not been changed by the conversion of the
> SCSI core from the legacy block layer to blk-mq.
>
> For other (hardware) block devices it didn't matter either that there
> was no upper limit to the number of requests the legacy block layer
> could allocate. All hardware block devices I know support fixed size
> queues for queuing requests to the block device.
I am not sure I understand your point. Those lower layers always were
able to get at least one request per request_queue. They can do whatever
they want with it after that. This change removes that guarantee for
blk-mq in some cases, right? I just don't think you can readily conclude
that is "safe" by appealing to the legacy behavior, that's all.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-20 17:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-18 18:00 [PATCH] block: Improve shared tag set performance Bart Van Assche
2023-10-20 4:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-10-20 16:17 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-10-20 16:25 ` Keith Busch
2023-10-20 16:45 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-10-20 17:09 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2023-10-20 17:54 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-10-21 1:31 ` Ming Lei
2023-10-21 16:13 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-10-23 3:44 ` Ming Lei
2023-10-20 19:11 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-10-21 7:32 ` Yu Kuai
2023-10-21 16:21 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-10-23 1:11 ` Yu Kuai
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-01-02 17:39 Bart Van Assche
2023-01-03 0:47 ` kernel test robot
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=ZTK0NcqB4lIQ_zHQ@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=ed.tsai@mediatek.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=yukuai1@huaweicloud.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.