[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <DAC70C00-B51D-4752-8EA7-EA55368918EC@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 11:44:06 +0200
From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Switching to MQ by default may generate some bug reports
> Il giorno 03 ago 2017, alle ore 11:42, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> ha scritto:
>
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 05:17:21PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Hi Mel Gorman,
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Christoph,
>>>
>>> I know the reasons for switching to MQ by default but just be aware that it's
>>> not without hazards albeit it the biggest issues I've seen are switching
>>> CFQ to BFQ. On my home grid, there is some experimental automatic testing
>>> running every few weeks searching for regressions. Yesterday, it noticed
>>> that creating some work files for a postgres simulator called pgioperf
>>> was 38.33% slower and it auto-bisected to the switch to MQ. This is just
>>> linearly writing two files for testing on another benchmark and is not
>>> remarkable. The relevant part of the report is
>>
>> We saw some SCSI-MQ performance issue too, please see if the following
>> patchset fixes your issue:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=150151989915776&w=2
>>
>
> 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?
Thanks,
Paolo
> --
> Mel Gorman
> SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists