[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53D007F3.4040006@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 21:07:31 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To: Matias Bjorling <m@...rling.me>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: <willy@...ux.intel.com>, <keith.busch@...el.com>,
<sbradshaw@...ron.com>, <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
<rlnelson@...gle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] NVMe: Convert to blk-mq
On 2014-07-23 20:58, Matias Bjorling wrote:
>>> + iod = nvme_alloc_iod(psegs, blk_rq_bytes(req), GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> if (!iod)
>>> + return result;
>>
>> So there's still a memory allocation for each request here. Any reason
>> this can't be preallocated at least for reasonable sized I/O?
>
> Not at all. I've kept from adding optimizations in the first pass. The
> patches following can implement the optimizations. Jens already has a
> patch for this in his tree. It also removes GFP_ATOMIC.
That is correct, and that is the way the series should be done. I've got
patches getting rid of this allocation for smaller IO:
http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-block.git;a=commit;h=04497c3394f3220111d4274704a1ff6bdd3ceae3
which is a noticable win for high IOPS smaller IO.
>> Seems like blk-mq would make your life easier by exporting an iterator
>> that goes over each in-use request instead of the current
>> blk_mq_tag_busy_iter prototype. blk_mq_timeout_check would also be able
>> to make use of that, so maybe that would be a good preparatory patch?
>
> Yes. I'll prepare a patch and send it off to Jens.
Thanks, that will clean it up nicely. It's a bit backwards these days,
since the mechanism got changed.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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