From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752037AbdHCKrE (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2017 06:47:04 -0400 Received: from outbound-smtp07.blacknight.com ([46.22.139.12]:33659 "EHLO outbound-smtp07.blacknight.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751755AbdHCKrC (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Aug 2017 06:47:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 11:46:57 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Paolo Valente Cc: Ming Lei , Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-block Subject: Re: Switching to MQ by default may generate some bug reports Message-ID: <20170803104657.eyxuona33ar5cpp4@techsingularity.net> References: <20170803085115.r2jfz2lofy5spfdb@techsingularity.net> <20170803094242.wol67mmga3om4gjp@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:44:06AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote: > > That series is dealing with problems with legacy-deadline vs mq-none where > > as the bulk of the problems reported in this mail are related to > > legacy-CFQ vs mq-BFQ. > > > > Out-of-curiosity: you get no regression with mq-none or mq-deadline? > I didn't test mq-none as the underlying storage was not fast enough to make a legacy-noop vs mq-none meaningful. legacy-deadline vs mq-deadline did show small regressions on some workloads but not as dramatic and small enough that it would go unmissed in some cases. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs