From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73214C65BAF for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FB5C2084E for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com header.i=@broadcom.com header.b="JHLeoTeZ" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2FB5C2084E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=broadcom.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726244AbeLLTPh (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:15:37 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com ([209.85.210.196]:42565 "EHLO mail-pf1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726235AbeLLTPh (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:15:37 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id 64so9315360pfr.9 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:15:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=EYgd8qT+yjLbYVWZZ+88svlf8bryEemogR5V3KQg5VQ=; b=JHLeoTeZ/p72TQ5eficf7wbYOpHK0czHiJGbMLPnjaT3zP/53Utz5kSX+S/bP0ZxsT TGXHRlxNnLnurn2eyn4PZlsPyleuwAOpLu1UsnMnbgti/v9OBQYQ8bVrvrqiwdOar/JQ kltfgQflK4QvFQ1eu+W7iAN6ZcJozvcAgCHVw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=EYgd8qT+yjLbYVWZZ+88svlf8bryEemogR5V3KQg5VQ=; b=EgB3/Y3yXyWejLhIenB+FqcxmSJuwqGYo9iyu73/gpP8cN9LyxMdCguhh3/MOTnTZG ZCiuGpdtB4xqYjQN5i9Spk+k8X2BgJnkpGYAm92hL186BwmybXIbl5PLY/+aQ/HGsYZT vJScF2aSkhqekFkv1ELcgtiQRS9GLOZdS2S7/LUZqrGoCzz+X9poAlU8HbsU1n6BX1np 5qvC/iL+IWn2puN9ZYu+8Syw7NdaoXn9w2KtNlAuh1GGE5a+mqbEKCwKi0nNY8HHHGKO v2lWGSuSYhhwZjKYEskawbIDPDwlWwHwI8ITqlrIcD4a2Gyr7nglvWPZRm1b5pkHC+4T slIA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWYo5NbB9amJD+l3bhyvDJ6F9sfly4bo9T9bnt4vUwqceW/R1Fdr c+N02LwR2hiMlAtn6uVCys/xOA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XY+gIxvIkmo+Ho8BoqSchk3vKjhPE8S8tIN2f8CYFt+Eycd7IwqQw0ze4ikW1uUQAnCKGAdA== X-Received: by 2002:a63:db02:: with SMTP id e2mr19367327pgg.419.1544642135807; Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:15:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.69.52.190] ([192.19.223.250]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d202sm30005107pfd.58.2018.12.12.11.15.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:15:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] implement nvmf read/write queue maps To: Sagi Grimberg , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch , Christoph Hellwig References: <20181211233519.9350-1-sagi@grimberg.me> <477ef7e7-bc81-5c27-84ba-27c75989bdc4@broadcom.com> From: James Smart Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:15:33 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 12/12/2018 9:58 AM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >> Sagi, >> >> What other wins are there for this split ? >> >> I'm considering whether its worthwhile for fc as well, but the hol >> issue doesn't exist with fc. What else is being resolved ? > > I've pondered it myself, which is why I didn't add it to fc as well > (would have been easy enough I think). I guess that with this the > user can limit writes compared to read by assigning less queues as > jens suggested in his patches... not enough to interest me.  I also would prefer to not require more queues - it only increases the oversubscription requirements on the target, which is already a major issue on real shared subsystems. Thanks -- james