From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Eric Seppanen <eric@purestorage.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@parallels.com>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Queue free fix (was Re: [PATCH] block: Free queue resources at blk_release_queue())
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:18:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4ED60302.7000304@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADOQvuM2VP1TsLMAOL+NC-zEypDS2NJGmiN6RFCxmjUT6LqaPA@mail.gmail.com>
On 2011-09-28 21:05, Eric Seppanen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>> Right now on high iops device queue_lock is the major killer for
>> performance. It's one major reason (*) why a lot of the high iops devices
>> are all moving to ->make_request, which has other issues.
>>
>> (*) others are struct request allocation and the pointless merge hash
>
> I agree: queue lock is the worst performance killer when hw can do
>> 100K IOPS per block device.
>
> Rather than just being chased away from the request queue due to
> performance issues, I could argue there's very little point to having
> a queue for devices that
> (a) have no seek penalty (and always use noop elevator)
> (b) have hardware queues at least as deep as the default request queue
> (c) don't benefit from merging
>
> (c) is maybe debatable, but if a device can saturate its bus bandwidth
> on 4KB IO, the latency is probably not worth it.
I agree on a+b, but c is definitely more than debatable. I have yet to
see a device saturate its bandwidth on 4KB IOS. So merging on the write
side is always going to be a win.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-30 10:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-22 13:18 [PATCH] block: Free queue resources at blk_release_queue() Hannes Reinecke
2011-09-28 0:47 ` Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 0:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 1:15 ` Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 1:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 2:02 ` Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 4:10 ` James Bottomley
2011-09-28 14:08 ` Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 14:11 ` James Bottomley
2011-09-28 14:14 ` [GIT PULL] Queue free fix (was Re: [PATCH] block: Free queue resources at blk_release_queue()) Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 15:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 15:43 ` James Bottomley
2011-09-28 17:48 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-28 17:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-09-28 18:09 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-28 18:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-09-28 19:05 ` Eric Seppanen
2011-09-28 19:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-30 10:18 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2011-11-30 10:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-09-28 22:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-28 17:59 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-13 13:09 ` Steffen Maier
2011-10-14 16:03 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-17 8:46 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-10-17 14:06 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-18 13:31 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-10-18 15:45 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-10-18 16:29 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-31 10:05 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-10-31 10:42 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-31 11:46 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-10-31 13:00 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-02 12:37 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-11-02 12:44 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-02 13:47 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-04 4:07 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-11-04 9:12 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-03 18:25 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-04 9:19 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-04 13:30 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-04 13:37 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-07 11:31 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-11-07 13:42 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-07 12:23 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-07 11:30 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-11-07 15:36 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-07 16:43 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-07 17:10 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-07 21:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-09 9:37 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-10 16:10 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-17 16:29 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-29 12:00 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-29 20:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-30 7:25 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-12-12 12:39 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-12-13 16:50 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-10-31 13:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-10-31 13:40 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-10-31 14:01 ` Mike Snitzer
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=4ED60302.7000304@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=eric@purestorage.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).