From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: "Ewan D. Milne" <emilne@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is stacked on old .request_fn device(s)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 17:15:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170714211539.GB19238@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1500052673.10198.174.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Jul 14 2017 at 1:17pm -0400,
Ewan D. Milne <emilne@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 10:19 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >
> > Do you see a benefit to extracting that portion of your WIP patch
> > (removing the ->complete handler entirely)?
> >
> > Or leave well enough alone and just continue to disable dm-mq's ability
> > to stack on .request_fn paths?
> >
> > Given SCSI's switch to scsi-mq by default I cannot see value in propping
> > up stacking on the old .request_fn devices.
>
> So, the dm_mod.use_blk_mq flag is global, right? I guess the question
> is whether all of the block device types used on a system under DM are
> supported under MQ. If that is the case then we would be OK.
I didn't quite understand Ewan's question so we talked in person. His
concern was whether other DM targets needed to be worried about blk-mq
vs not. I clarified that DM multipath is the only target that is
request-based and that it is fine with stacking on scsi-mq. And all the
bio-based targets obviously stack just fine on scsi-mq devices.
> The other question is whether there are negative performance
> consequences in any (corner?) cases with MQ that would result in it
> being preferable to run in non-MQ mode (e.g. tag space with lpfc, did
> we ever resolve that?) but the right approach there is to put the effort
> into the MQ path going forward, as has been the case.
Yeap.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-14 21:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-13 21:12 [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 0/2] dm rq: eliminate historic blk-mq and .request_fn queue stacking restrictions Mike Snitzer
2017-07-13 21:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is stacked on old .request_fn device(s) Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14 7:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-14 14:19 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14 17:17 ` Ewan D. Milne
2017-07-14 21:15 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2017-07-13 21:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 2/2] dm rq: eliminate historic blk-mq and .request_fn queue stacking restrictions Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14 7:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 0/2] " Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-14 14:02 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-15 8:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20170714211539.GB19238@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=emilne@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.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