[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131028085206.GB31270@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 01:52:06 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Asias He <asias@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio_blk: blk-mq support
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 01:17:54PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Let's pretend I'm stupid.
>
> We don't actually have multiple queues through to the host, but we're
> pretending to, because it makes the block layer go faster?
>
> Do I want to know *why* it's faster? Or should I look the other way?
You shouldn't. To how multiple queues benefit here I'd like to defer to
Jens, given the single workqueue I don't really know where to look here.
The real benefit that unfortunately wasn't obvious from the description
is that even with just a single queue the blk-multiqueue infrastructure
will be a lot faster, because it is designed in a much more streaminline
fashion and avoids lots of lock roundtrips both during submission itself
and for submission vs complettion. Back when I tried to get virtio-blk
to perform well on high-end flash (the work that Asias took over later)
the queue_lock contention was the major issue in virtio-blk and this
patch gets rid of that even with a single queue.
A good example are the patches from Nick to move scsi drivers over to
the infrastructure that only support a single queue. Even that gave
over a 10 fold improvement over the old code.
Unfortunately I do not have access to this kind of hardware at the
moment, but I'd love to see if Asias or anyone at Red Hat could redo
those old numbers.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists