From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, Linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Two blk-mq related topics
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 09:24:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180130012408.GD17176@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1517259390.3969.41.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:56:30PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 23:46 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> [...]
> > 2. When to enable SCSI_MQ at default again?
>
> I'm not sure there's much to discuss ... I think the basic answer is as
> soon as Christoph wants to try it again.
I guess Christoph still need to evaluate if there are existed issues or
blockers before trying it again. And more input may be got from F2F
discussion, IMHO.
>
> > SCSI_MQ is enabled on V3.17 firstly, but disabled at default. In
> > V4.13-rc1, it is enabled at default, but later the patch is reverted
> > in V4.13-rc7, and becomes disabled at default too.
> >
> > Now both the original reported PM issue(actually SCSI quiesce) and
> > the sequential IO performance issue have been addressed.
>
> Is the blocker bug just not closed because no-one thought to do it:
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=178381
>
> (we have confirmed that this issue is now fixed with the original
> reporter?)
>From a developer view, this issue is fixed by the following commit:
3a0a52997(block, scsi: Make SCSI quiesce and resume work reliably),
and it is verified by kernel list reporter.
>
> And did the Huawei guy (Jonathan Cameron) confirm his performance issue
> was fixed (I don't think I saw email that he did)?
Last time I talked with John Garry about the issue, and the merged .get_budget
based patch improves much on the IO performance, but there is still a bit gap
compared with legacy path. Seems a driver specific issue, remembered that removing
a driver's lock can improve performance much.
Garry, could you provide further update on this issue?
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-30 1:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-29 15:46 [LSF/MM TOPIC] Two blk-mq related topics Ming Lei
2018-01-29 20:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-01-30 1:27 ` Ming Lei
2018-01-29 20:56 ` James Bottomley
2018-01-29 21:00 ` Jens Axboe
2018-01-29 23:46 ` James Bottomley
2018-01-30 1:47 ` Jens Axboe
2018-01-30 10:08 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-01-30 10:50 ` Mel Gorman
2018-01-30 1:24 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2018-01-30 8:33 ` Martin Steigerwald
2018-01-30 10:33 ` John Garry
2018-02-07 10:55 ` John Garry
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=20180130012408.GD17176@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=Linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.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