linux-scsi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"Ewan D . Milne" <emilne@redhat.com>,
	Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
	Laurence Oberman <loberman@redhat.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 2/2] scsi: core: don't limit per-LUN queue depth for SSD
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 08:43:29 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191010004328.GA23292@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <75fe51d7-714f-8a51-89b5-aeeb7d318fdc@acm.org>

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:05:26AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 10/9/19 2:32 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > @@ -354,7 +354,8 @@ void scsi_device_unbusy(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> >   	if (starget->can_queue > 0)
> >   		atomic_dec(&starget->target_busy);
> > -	atomic_dec(&sdev->device_busy);
> > +	if (!blk_queue_nonrot(sdev->request_queue))
> > +		atomic_dec(&sdev->device_busy);
> >   }
> 
> Hi Ming,
> 
> Does this patch impact the meaning of the queue_depth sysfs attribute (see
> also sdev_store_queue_depth()) and also the queue depth ramp up/down
> mechanism (see also scsi_handle_queue_ramp_up())? Have you considered to

This patch only ignores to track inflight SCSI commands on each
LUN, so it doesn't affect the meaning of sdev->queue_depth, which is
just bypassed for SSD.

> enable/disable busy tracking per LUN depending on whether or not
> sdev->queue_depth < shost->can_queue?

Yeah, we can do it, but that isn't contradictory with this patch, :-)
And we can do it even though sdev->queue_depth < shost->can_queue.

Usually sdev->queue_depth is used for the following reasons:

1) this limit isn't a hard limit, which may improve IO merge with cost
of IO latency.

2) fair dispatch among LUNs.

This patch just tries to not apply per-LUN queue depth for SSD, because:

1) fair dispatch has been done by blk-mq in allocating driver tag

2) IO merge doesn't play big role for SSD, and IO latency can be
increased by applying per-LUN queue depth.

3) NVMe doesn't apply per-ns queue depth

> 
> The megaraid and mpt3sas drivers read sdev->device_busy directly. Is the
> current version of this patch compatible with these drivers?

For megaraid, sdev->device_busy is checked for choosing reply queue,
this way shouldn't be better than using default managed IRQ's mapping.
Similar usage is done on _base_get_high_iops_msix_index().

The only effect may be in scsih_dev_reset(), and 'SUCCESS' message
is dumped even though there is in-flight command on this LUN, but it
can be fixed easily.


Thanks,
Ming

  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-10  0:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-09  9:32 [PATCH V4 0/2] scsi: avoid atomic operations in IO path Ming Lei
2019-10-09  9:32 ` [PATCH V4 1/2] scsi: core: avoid host-wide host_busy counter for scsi_mq Ming Lei
2019-10-09 16:14   ` Bart Van Assche
2019-10-23  8:52   ` John Garry
2019-10-24  0:58     ` Ming Lei
2019-10-24  9:19       ` John Garry
2019-10-24 21:24         ` Ming Lei
2019-10-25  8:58           ` John Garry
2019-10-25  9:43             ` Ming Lei
2019-10-25 10:13               ` John Garry
2019-10-25 21:53                 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-28  9:42                   ` John Garry
2019-10-09  9:32 ` [RFC PATCH V4 2/2] scsi: core: don't limit per-LUN queue depth for SSD Ming Lei
2019-10-09 16:05   ` Bart Van Assche
2019-10-10  0:43     ` Ming Lei [this message]
2019-10-17 18:30     ` Kashyap Desai
2019-10-23  1:28       ` Ming Lei
2019-10-23  7:46         ` Kashyap Desai
2019-10-24  1:09           ` Ming Lei
2019-10-25 10:04             ` Kashyap Desai
2019-10-25 21:58               ` Ming Lei
2019-11-04  9:30                 ` Kashyap Desai
2019-11-05  0:23                   ` Ming Lei
2019-10-23  0:30   ` [scsi] cc2f854c79: suspend_stress.fail kernel test robot

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=20191010004328.GA23292@ming.t460p \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=emilne@redhat.com \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=kashyap.desai@broadcom.com \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=loberman@redhat.com \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=osandov@fb.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).