public inbox for linux-block@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
	Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] block: Improve IOPS by removing the fairness code
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:55:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbdf0ee0-9252-447f-bb7a-d91bdb4759ab@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7a69eba2-42e4-4c67-8a54-37b5b41675f9@kernel.dk>

On 5/30/24 16:38, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/30/24 3:17 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>> On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 02:02:20PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> Thank you for having run this test. I propose that users who want better
>>> fairness than what my patch supports use an appropriate mechanism for
>>> improving fairness (e.g. blk-iocost or blk-iolat). This leaves the choice
>>> between maximum performance and maximum fairness to the user. Does this
>>> sound good to you?
>>
>> I really don't know, I generally test with low latency devices and
>> disable those blk services because their overhead is too high. I'm
>> probably not the target demographic for those mechanisms. :)
> 
> Yeah same. But outside of that, needing to configure something else is
> also a bit of a cop out. From the initial posting, it's quoting 2.9%
> gain. For lots of cases, adding blk-iocost or blk-iolat would be MORE
> than a 2.9% hit.
> 
> That said, I'd love to kill the code, but I still don't think we have
> good numbers on it. Are yours fully stable? What does the qd=1 test do
> _without_ having anyone compete with it? Is the bandwidth nicely
> balanced if each does qd=32? I'm again kindly asking for some testing
> :-)
> 
>> I just wanted to push the edge cases to see where things diverge.
>> Perhaps Jens can weigh in on the impact and suggested remedies?
> 
> Don't think we have enough data yet to make the call...

Hi Jens,

I'm interested in this patch because it solves a UFS performance issue. Because
this patch significantly improves performance for UFS devices, we are carrying
some form of this patch since more than two years in the Android kernel tree.

Thanks,

Bart.



      reply	other threads:[~2024-05-31 21:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-05-29 21:39 [PATCH v7] block: Improve IOPS by removing the fairness code Bart Van Assche
2024-05-30 20:47 ` Keith Busch
2024-05-30 21:02   ` Bart Van Assche
2024-05-30 21:17     ` Keith Busch
2024-05-30 23:38       ` Jens Axboe
2024-05-31 21:55         ` Bart Van Assche [this message]

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=cbdf0ee0-9252-447f-bb7a-d91bdb4759ab@acm.org \
    --to=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=yukuai3@huawei.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