[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140710133609.GO12478@kvack.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 09:36:09 -0400
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <Elliott@...com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"dgilbert@...erlog.com" <dgilbert@...erlog.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@...ionio.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: scsi-mq V2
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:20:40PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:53:36AM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:
> > the problem still occurs - fio results in low or 0 IOPS, with perf top
> > reporting unusual amounts of time spent in do_io_submit and io_submit.
>
> The diff between the two version doesn't show too much other possible
> interesting commits, the most interesting being some minor block
> updates.
>
> I guess we'll have to a manual bisect, I've pushed out a
> scsi-mq.3-bisect-1 branch that is rebased to just before the merge of
> the block tree, and a scsi-mq.3-bisect-2 branch that is just after
> the merge of the block tree to get started.
There is one possible concern that could be exacerbated by other changes in
the system: if the application is running close to the bare minimum number
of requests allocated in io_setup(), the per cpu reference counters will
have a hard time batching things. It might be worth testing with an
increased number of requests being allocated if this is the case.
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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