[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170921140729.GA17333@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:07:29 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bough Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@...disk.com>,
Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@...el.com>,
Yuliy Izrailov <Yuliy.Izrailov@...disk.com>,
Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
Das Asutosh <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...il.com>,
Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>,
Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@...eaurora.org>,
Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 00/14] mmc: Add Command Queue support
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 02:40:00PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> Non-CQE blk-mq showed a 3% decrease in sequential read performance. This
> seemed to be coming from the inferior latency of running work items compared
> with a dedicated thread. Hacking blk-mq workqueue to be unbound reduced the
> performance degradation from 3% to 1%.
Can you start a discussion on just this on the linux-block lists?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists