public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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