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: 15+ 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
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox