[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161028171744.n3l7brpcphi4duah@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:17:44 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Linux-Kernal <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] introduce the BFQ-v0 I/O scheduler as an extra
scheduler
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 06:05:35PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 9:30:07 AM CEST Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Also, 4.8 and newer have support for BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING, if you need to
> > block in ->queue_rq(). That could eliminate the need to offload to a
> > kthread manually.
> I think the main reason for the kthread is that on ARM and other
> architectures, the dma mapping operations are fairly slow (for
> cache flushes or bounce buffering) and we want to minimize the
> time between subsequent requests being handled by the hardware.
> This is not unique to MMC in any way, MMC just happens to be
> common on ARM and it is limited by its lack of hardware
> command queuing.
Plus the fact that MMC (and SD) have some *relatively* high performance
implementations which amplify the effects of desaturating the hardware -
the faster the hardware is the more noticable the overhead of stalling
it becomes.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (456 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists