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=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 12D99C433DF for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190AF22B40 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 09:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=broadcom.com header.i=@broadcom.com header.b="VZOV890D" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725913AbgHDJ16 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2020 05:27:58 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39194 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725904AbgHDJ16 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2020 05:27:58 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x742.google.com (mail-qk1-x742.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::742]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBD7AC061756 for ; Tue, 4 Aug 2020 02:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x742.google.com with SMTP id 2so33659892qkf.10 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 02:27:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:thread-index:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cPlNNpjyiTBikq1bl8KaReTGTuo/mBW8l6LZ+Qu9Pms=; b=VZOV890DtOTCchaixXqCraKQuyAwJ3kbbD1EEpSRVy/D1rUmLZy/yb2lothc+1HD6f ra5X5ZcQ28d97t6UY5t9m58S6yyRk/O39YZwR9pDcYySxXtATVFp4sPAJSHkHlgTJe3N e1iAwaGzM07iJWlLpiFvJzSWlWCfg+IBYsD8A= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=cPlNNpjyiTBikq1bl8KaReTGTuo/mBW8l6LZ+Qu9Pms=; b=eLt+90bSi1xzKf6TwixRg/sdC58KEadD0Gzu7ivEW74D3zs487jYlFXuFLoF1QBIUJ UaYXP/6XYUkYPhorZsHkcnF0X2Mr9Pex4jALkXKjyYUnt27ZtADcgKpomBctppFQL4+G 19B16+UXSRB+WU2ybRaYTojmARs/8iFhHhyfpo1NDF6wf4xw0Ag0zzXVQZwn8UTudyOg /3I5YeB29tFL0mto5vPyWkX5aigKC3KlA+7vA9Us8wMBz7TNNmxMja2BdSrsir609T/F 6ezrbK+T0Xh6IHL/gGJt5vmrpIeOTAhZhEn5j0bbXpdCC3IEgH30IHK5PoCxRFVRYODm 7wYg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532o9KNMsishJFiiKGH/7jyZ313UpOGiNMuawn7ULY2ElJKB2ABn gqOOLlx/dIEdsqbkusLaaQzzTx3H5V7qnmZshKsnUA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzUiPNNhJ5LRPS0CJFuFwW6tIIfKOEJ9HeIXF8yVrxHPDEOGsdU+NUbZIvHd2oAxyM/p63UaK56GVNru9v6gKs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:9c6:: with SMTP id y6mr19113266qky.27.1596533276677; Tue, 04 Aug 2020 02:27:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Kashyap Desai References: <20200722080409.GB912316@T590> <20200723140758.GA957464@T590> <20200724024704.GB957464@T590> <6531e06c-9ce2-73e6-46fc-8e97400f07b2@huawei.com> <20200728084511.GA1326626@T590> <965cf22eea98c00618570da8424d0d94@mail.gmail.com> <20200729153648.GA1698748@T590> <7f94eaf2318cc26ceb64bde88d59d5e2@mail.gmail.com> <20200804083625.GA1958244@T590> In-Reply-To: <20200804083625.GA1958244@T590> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQJmEWWiA+zHQjWZm0OGQGb5QSh7zQFGdip8AjEYQFIAWf0H4wE/+OJyAP0zBfADIyO/DQIQ6BN/Af8DR5wB98/f/wIl0wtMp31jMFA= Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:57:52 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: RE: [PATCH RFC v7 10/12] megaraid_sas: switch fusion adapters to MQ To: Ming Lei Cc: John Garry , axboe@kernel.dk, jejb@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, don.brace@microsemi.com, Sumit Saxena , bvanassche@acm.org, hare@suse.com, hch@lst.de, Shivasharan Srikanteshwara , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, esc.storagedev@microsemi.com, chenxiang66@hisilicon.com, "PDL,MEGARAIDLINUX" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org > > > > > However, it looks a bit > > > complicated, and I was thinking if one simpler approach can be > > > figured > > out. > > > > I was thinking your original approach is simple, but if you think some > > other simple approach I can test as part of these series. > > BTW, I am still not getting why you think your original approach is > > not good design. > > It is still not straightforward enough or simple enough for proving its > correctness, even though the implementation isn't complicated. Ming - I noted your comments. I have completed testing and this particular latest performance issue on Volume is outstanding. Currently it is 20-25% performance drop in IOPs and we want that to be closed before shared host tag is enabled for driver. Just for my understanding - What will be the next steps on this ? I can validate any new approach/patch for this issue. Kashyap > > > > > > > > > >