Linux block layer
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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