From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Sathya Prakash <sathya.prakash@broadcom.com>,
Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@broadcom.com>,
Suganath Prabu Subramani <suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com>,
PDL-MPT-FUSIONLINUX <MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com>
Cc: chenxiang <chenxiang66@hisilicon.com>
Subject: Re: About scsi device queue depth
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 08:23:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2b9a90c4-17e6-4935-bf3f-4bef54de27cc@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9ff894da-cf2c-9094-2690-1973cc57835a@huawei.com>
On 1/11/21 5:21 PM, John Garry wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at some IOMMU issue on a LSI RAID 3008 card, and noticed
> that performance there is not what I get on other SAS HBAs - it's lower.
>
> After some debugging and fiddling with sdev queue depth in mpt3sas
> driver, I am finding that performance changes appreciably with sdev
> queue depth:
>
> sdev qdepth fio number jobs* 1 10 20
> 16 1590 1654 1660
> 32 1545 1646 1654
> 64 1436 1085 1070
> 254 (default) 1436 1070 1050
>
> fio queue depth is 40, and I'm using 12x SAS SSDs.
>
> I got comparable disparity in results for fio queue depth = 128 and num
> jobs = 1:
>
> sdev qdepth fio number jobs* 1
> 16 1640
> 32 1618
> 64 1577
> 254 (default) 1437
>
> IO sched = none.
>
> That driver also sets queue depth tracking = 1, but never seems to kick in.
>
> So it seems to me that the block layer is merging more bios per request,
> as averge sg count per request goes up from 1 - > upto 6 or more. As I
> see, when queue depth lowers the only thing that is really changing is
> that we fail more often in getting the budget in
> scsi_mq_get_budget()->scsi_dev_queue_ready().
>
> So initial sdev queue depth comes from cmd_per_lun by default or
> manually setting in the driver via scsi_change_queue_depth(). It seems
> to me that some drivers are not setting this optimally, as above.
>
> Thoughts on guidance for setting sdev queue depth? Could blk-mq changed
> this behavior?
>
First of all: are these 'real' SAS SSDs?
The peak at 32 seems very ATA-ish, and I wouldn't put it past the LSI
folks to optimize for that case :-)
Can you get a more detailed picture by changing the queue depth more
finegrained?
(Will get you nicer graphs to boot :-)
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-12 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-11 16:21 About scsi device queue depth John Garry
2021-01-11 16:40 ` James Bottomley
2021-01-11 17:11 ` John Garry
2021-01-12 6:35 ` James Bottomley
2021-01-12 10:27 ` John Garry
2021-01-12 16:40 ` Bryan Gurney
2021-01-12 16:47 ` James Bottomley
2021-01-12 17:20 ` Bryan Gurney
2021-01-11 17:31 ` Douglas Gilbert
2021-01-13 6:07 ` Martin K. Petersen
2021-01-13 6:36 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-01-12 1:42 ` Ming Lei
2021-01-12 8:56 ` John Garry
2021-01-12 9:06 ` Ming Lei
2021-01-12 9:23 ` John Garry
2021-01-12 11:44 ` Kashyap Desai
2021-01-13 12:17 ` John Garry
2021-01-13 13:34 ` Kashyap Desai
2021-01-13 15:39 ` John Garry
2021-01-12 17:44 ` John Garry
2021-01-12 7:23 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2021-01-12 9:15 ` 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=2b9a90c4-17e6-4935-bf3f-4bef54de27cc@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=chenxiang66@hisilicon.com \
--cc=hare@suse.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jejb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=kashyap.desai@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=sathya.prakash@broadcom.com \
--cc=sreekanth.reddy@broadcom.com \
--cc=suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com \
/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