Re: [PATCH 4/4] scsi: core: don't limit per-LUN queue depth for SSD

[Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:46:48PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 11/22/19 10:26 AM, James Smart wrote:
> > On 11/22/2019 10:14 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > Thanks for having shared these numbers. I think this is very useful
> > > information. Do these results show the performance drop that happens
> > > if /sys/block/.../device/queue_depth exceeds .can_queue? What I am
> > > wondering about is how important these results are in the context of
> > > this discussion. Are there any modern SCSI devices for which a SCSI
> > > LLD sets scsi_host->can_queue and scsi_host->cmd_per_lun such that
> > > the device responds with BUSY? What surprised me is that only three
> > > SCSI LLDs call scsi_track_queue_full() (mptsas, bfa, esp_scsi). Does
> > > that mean that BUSY responses from a SCSI device or HBA are rare?
> > 
> > That's because most of the drivers, which had queue full ramp up/ramp
> > down in them and would have called scsi_track_queue_full() converted
> > over to the moved-queue-full-handling-in-the-mid-layer, indicated by
> > sht->track_queue_depth = 1.
> > 
> > Yes - it is still hit a lot!
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> In the systems that I have been working on myself I made sure that the BUSY
> condition is rarely or never encountered. Anyway, since there are setups in
> which this condition is hit frequently we need to make sure that these
> setups keep performing well. I'm wondering now whether we should try to come
> up with an algorithm for maintaining sdev->device_busy only if it improves
> performance and for not maintaining sdev->device_busy for devices/HBAs that
> don't need it.

The simplest policy could be to only maintain sdev->device_busy for HDD.


Thanks,
Ming