From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
"ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
James Smart <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com" <scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com>,
"kmo@daterainc.com" <kmo@daterainc.com>,
target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] scsi-mq prototype discussion
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 10:34:15 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130722163415.GV32755@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51E946C7.3020502@redhat.com>
On Fri, Jul 19 2013, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> down the work items ahead of a real mainline push is high on
> >>>>>>>>priority list for discussion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>The parties to be included in such a discussion are:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Jens Axboe (blk-mq author)
> >>>>>>>> - James Bottomley (scsi maintainer)
> >>>>>>>> - Christoph Hellwig (scsi)
> >>>>>>>> - Martin Petersen (scsi)
> >>>>>>>> - Tejun Heo (block + libata)
> >>>>>>>> - Hannes Reinecke (scsi error recovery)
> >>>>>>>> - Kent Overstreet (block, per-cpu ida)
> >>>>>>>> - Stephen Cameron (scsi-over-pcie driver)
> >>>>>>>> - Andrew Vasquez (qla2xxx LLD)
> >>>>>>>> - James Smart (lpfc LLD)
> >>>>>>>Isn't this something that should have been discussed at the storage
> >>>>>>>mini-summit a few months ago?
> >>>>>>The scsi-mq prototype, along with blk-mq (in it's current form) did not
> >>>>>>exist a few short months ago. ;)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It seems very specific to one subsystem to be a kernel summit topic,
> >>>>>>>don't you think?
> >>>>>>It's no more subsystem specific than half of the other proposals so far,
> >>>>>>and given it's reach across multiple subsystems (block, scsi, target),
> >>>>>>and the amount of off-list interest on the topic, I think it would make
> >>>>>>a good candidate for discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>And it'll open up new approaches which previously were dismissed,
> >>>>>like re-implementing multipathing on top of scsi-mq, giving us the
> >>>>>single scsi device like other UNIX systems.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Also I do think there's quite some synergy to be had, as with blk-mq
> >>>>>we could nail each queue to a processor, which would eliminate the
> >>>>>need for locking.
> >>>>>Which could be useful for other subsystems, too.
> >>>>Lets start with discussing this on the list, please, and then see where
> >>>>we go from there ...
> >>>>
> >>>Yes, the discussion is beginning to make it's way to the list. I've
> >>>mostly been waiting for blk-mq to get a wider review before taking the
> >>>early scsi-mq prototype driver to a larger public audience.
> >>>
> >>>Primarily, I'm now reaching out to the people most effected by existing
> >>>scsi_request_fn() based performance limitations. Most of them have
> >>>abandoned existing scsi_request_fn() based logic in favor of raw block
> >>>make_request() based drivers, and are now estimating the amount of
> >>>effort to move to an scsi-mq based approach.
> >>>
> >>>Regardless, as the prototype progresses over the next months, having a
> >>>face-to-face discussion with the key parties in the room would be very
> >>>helpful given the large amount of effort involved to actually make this
> >>>type of generational shift in SCSI actually happen.
> >>There's a certain amount of overlap with the aio/O_DIRECT work as well.
> >>But if it's not a general session, could always be a BOF or something.
> >>
> >>I'll second the argument that most technical topics probably DO belong
> >>in a topic related workshop. But that leaves us with basically only
> >>process related topics at KS, I don't think it hurts to have a bit of
> >>tech meat on the bone too. At least I personally miss that part of KS
> >>from years gone by.
> >Heh well, given that most of the block mq discussions at LSF have been
> >you saying you really should get around to cleaning up and posting the
> >code, you'll understand my wanting to see that happen first ...
> >
> >I suppose we could try to run a storage workshop within KS, but I think
> >most of the mini summit slots have already gone. There's also plumbers
> >if all slots are gone (I would say that, being biased and on the
> >programme committee) Ric is running the storage and Filesystems MC
> >
> >http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2013/ocw/events/LPC2013/tracks/159
> >
> >James
> >
>
> And we still are looking for suggested topics - it would be great to have
> the multi-queue work at plumbers.
>
> You can post a proposal for it (or other topics) here:
>
> http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2013/ocw/events/LPC2013/proposals
FWIW, I can't make Plumbers this year, unfortunately.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-22 16:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-12 0:23 [ATTEND] scsi-mq prototype discussion Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-12 1:02 ` [Ksummit-2013-discuss] " Greg KH
2013-07-12 1:33 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-12 10:52 ` Hannes Reinecke
2013-07-13 6:53 ` James Bottomley
2013-07-16 21:07 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-16 21:15 ` Jens Axboe
2013-07-17 4:52 ` James Bottomley
2013-07-19 14:01 ` Ric Wheeler
2013-07-22 16:34 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2013-07-19 21:22 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-19 21:46 ` James Bottomley
2013-07-19 22:06 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2013-07-16 22:19 ` scameron
2013-11-29 14:08 ` scsi-mq prototype Bart Van Assche
2013-12-09 21:05 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
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=20130722163415.GV32755@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=James.Smart@Emulex.Com \
--cc=andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=kmo@daterainc.com \
--cc=ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rwheeler@redhat.com \
--cc=scameron@beardog.cce.hp.com \
--cc=target-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).