From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752944AbaEBQlm (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 12:41:42 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com ([209.85.220.49]:64676 "EHLO mail-pa0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752726AbaEBQll (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 12:41:41 -0400 Message-ID: <5363CAC4.4040306@kernel.dk> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 10:41:40 -0600 From: Jens Axboe User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Hellwig CC: Kent Overstreet , Ming Lei , Alexander Gordeev , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Shaohua Li , Nicholas Bellinger , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] percpu_ida: Take into account CPU topology when stealing tags References: <535716A5.6050108@kernel.dk> <535AD235.90604@kernel.dk> <535B13D7.4050202@kernel.dk> <53601602.5060306@kernel.dk> <20140501224744.GA2285@kmo-pixel> <536300BB.5060906@kernel.dk> <20140502050523.GA21708@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20140502050523.GA21708@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/01/2014 11:05 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 08:19:39PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> I've taken the consequence of this and implemented another tagging >> scheme that blk-mq will use if it deems that percpu_ida isn't going >> to be effective for the device being initialized. But I really hate >> to have both of them in there. Unfortunately I have no devices >> available that have a tag space that will justify using percu_ida, >> so comparisons are a bit hard at the moment. NVMe should change >> that, though, so decision will have to be deferred until that is >> tested. > > At least for SCSI devices _tag space_ is plenty, it's just the we > artifically limit our tag space to the queue depth to avoid having to > track that one separately. In addition we also preallocaste a request > for each tag, so even if we would track the queue depth separately > we would waste a lot of memory. In practice it comes out to the same, it's not feasible to run a much larger space and track on queue depth. So I don't think that changes the conclusion for SCSI. -- Jens Axboe