From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] nvme-tcp: per-controller I/O workqueues
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 09:17:26 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZoWjxtyjHTC2r285@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aaa404b1-72ac-4b15-8c30-a62ef2216004@grimberg.me>
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 10:14:14PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
...
> None of these reasons are the claimed reason to use separate workqueues in
> this patch. The claim is that it is more efficient, i.e. has less overhead.
>
> The commit msg is the following:
> "Implement per-controller I/O workqueues to reduce workqueue contention
> during I/O."
Hmm... it's not impossible for the concurrency accounting in pool_workqueues
to show up if the issue rate is *really* high but I'd be surprised if that
actually matters given that the backend pool is shared. Maybe I'm missing
something but I don't see a reason why multiple workqueues would be more
efficient than a shared one.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-03 19:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-03 13:50 [PATCH 0/4] nvme-tcp: improve scalability Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 13:50 ` [PATCH 1/4] nvme-tcp: per-controller I/O workqueues Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 14:11 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 14:46 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 15:16 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 17:07 ` Tejun Heo
2024-07-03 19:14 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 19:17 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2024-07-03 19:41 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-04 7:36 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-05 7:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-05 8:11 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-05 8:16 ` Jens Axboe
2024-07-04 5:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-03 13:50 ` [PATCH 2/4] nvme-tcp: align I/O cpu with blk-mq mapping Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 14:19 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 14:53 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 15:03 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 15:40 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 19:38 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 19:47 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-04 6:43 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-04 9:07 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-04 14:03 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-04 5:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-04 9:13 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 13:50 ` [PATCH 3/4] workqueue: introduce helper workqueue_unbound_affinity_scope() Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 17:31 ` Tejun Heo
2024-07-04 6:04 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 13:50 ` [PATCH 4/4] nvme-tcp: switch to 'cpu' affinity scope for unbound workqueues Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 14:22 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 15:01 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-03 15:09 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 15:50 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-04 9:11 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-04 15:54 ` Hannes Reinecke
2024-07-05 11:48 ` Sagi Grimberg
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=ZoWjxtyjHTC2r285@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=hare@kernel.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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