From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E95DBC433E0 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C781F21897 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:14:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="KykNrRHP" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726609AbgGNKO5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:14:57 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:48918 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725952AbgGNKO4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:14:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1594721695; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=eK+gRiV5wR55qDimLkvlx5oZ6+faA3C9UnHWXxdJQp4=; b=KykNrRHPbx+J9m4nlUYNWbcxxT+QedUMx+v5kJ59dhFKjRplfnx52MzcxH6KpxB1gEvsdg hxGDejfoTFECQpW5qFxUA2KdO+z17MbotnCI1daO53biSp8fLMh8xVD3xndwgD/UXuCj5S 8CihzaSZvJlWIa130WwYznhj33s2pr4= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-10-2qr_FMNFPAC0ct7ewZ-Adw-1; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 06:14:50 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 2qr_FMNFPAC0ct7ewZ-Adw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272E08014D4; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:14:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-13-177.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.13.177]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AFFEB60BEC; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:14:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 18:14:32 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: John Garry Cc: Hannes Reinecke , don.brace@microsemi.com, axboe@kernel.dk, jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, kashyap.desai@broadcom.com, sumit.saxena@broadcom.com, bvanassche@acm.org, hare@suse.com, hch@lst.de, shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, esc.storagedev@microsemi.com, chenxiang66@hisilicon.com, megaraidlinux.pdl@broadcom.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v7 12/12] hpsa: enable host_tagset and switch to MQ Message-ID: <20200714101432.GA602708@T590> References: <1591810159-240929-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <1591810159-240929-13-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com> <939891db-a584-1ff7-d6a0-3857e4257d3e@huawei.com> <3b3ead84-5d2f-dcf2-33d5-6aa12d5d9f7e@suse.de> <4319615a-220b-3629-3bf4-1e7fd2d27b92@huawei.com> <20200714080631.GA600766@T590> <3584bcc3-830a-d50d-bb55-8ac0b686cdc0@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3584bcc3-830a-d50d-bb55-8ac0b686cdc0@huawei.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:53:32AM +0100, John Garry wrote: > On 14/07/2020 09:06, Ming Lei wrote: > > > v7 is here: > > > > > > https://github.com/hisilicon/kernel-dev/commits/private-topic-blk-mq-shared-tags-rfc-v7 > > > > > > So that should be good to test with for now. > > > > > > And I was going to ask this same question about smartpqi, so can you please > > > let me know about this one? > > Hi Ming, > > > smartpqi is real MQ HBA, do you need any change wrt. shared tags? > > Is it really? Yes, it is. pqi_register_scsi(): shost->nr_hw_queues = ctrl_info->num_queue_groups; pqi_enable_msix_interrupts(): num_vectors_enabled = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(ctrl_info->pci_dev, PQI_MIN_MSIX_VECTORS, ctrl_info->num_queue_groups, PCI_IRQ_MSIX | PCI_IRQ_AFFINITY); > > As I see, today it maintains a single tagset per HBA. So Hannes' change in No, each hw queue has one independent tagset for smartpqi. > this series seems ok. However, I do worry that mainline code may be wrong, > as block layer may send can_queue * nr_hw_queues requests, when it seems the > HBA can only handle can_queue requests. I have one machine in which all system are installed on smartpqi disks, and I almost work on the system everyday, so far so good with this real MQ style. Can you explain a bit why you worry the mainline code may be wrong? Thanks, Ming