From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block:for-3.3/core] cfq: merged request shouldn't jump
 to a different cfqq
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:04:06 -0800
Message-ID: <20120106030406.GD6276@google.com>
References: <20120103200906.GG31746@google.com>
 <4F03631C.8080501@kernel.dk>
 <20120103221301.GH31746@google.com>
 <20120103223505.GI31746@google.com>
 <20120105012445.GP31746@google.com>
 <alpine.LSU.2.00.1201051026090.2009@eggly.anvils>
 <20120105183842.GF18486@google.com>
 <20120106021707.GA6276@google.com>
 <20120106023638.GC6276@google.com>
 <1325819655.22361.513.camel@sli10-conroe>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1325819655.22361.513.camel@sli10-conroe>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org

Hello,

On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 11:14:15AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > So, yeah, the right fix would be using elv_former/latter_request()
> > instead.  Maybe we should strip out rqhash altogether and change
> > elevator handle everything?  I don't know.  I'll prepare a different
> > fix patch soon.
>
> So not allow merge from two cfq queues strictly? This will impact
> performance. I don't know how important the strict isolation is. we even
> allow two cfq queues merge to improve performance.

That's how cfq has behaved before this recent plug merge breakage and
IIRC why the cooperating queue thing is there.  If you want to change
the behavior, that should be an explicit separate patch.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun