[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180531024247.GA15700@ming.t460p>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:42:48 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
Ewan Milne <emilne@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Linux NVMe Mailinglist <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
Martin George <marting@...app.com>,
John Meneghini <John.Meneghini@...app.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Provide more fine grained control over multipathing
On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 09:22:40AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:02:36PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > No, what both Red Hat and SUSE are saying is: cool let's have a go at
> > "Plan A" but, in parallel, what harm is there in allowing "Plan B" (dm
> > multipath) to be conditionally enabled to coexist with native NVMe
> > multipath?
>
> For a "Plan B" we can still use the global knob that's already in
> place (even if this reminds me so much about scsi-mq which at least we
> haven't turned on in fear of performance regressions).
BTW, for scsi-mq, we have made a little progress by commit 2f31115e940c
(scsi: core: introduce force_blk_mq), and virtio-scsi is working at
always scsi-mq mode now. Then driver can decide if .force_blk_mq needs
to be set.
Hope progress can be made in this nvme mpath issue too.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists