[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aef69f3b-a8db-f34c-4a52-49ba9020f6cf@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2022 14:08:02 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, kashyap.desai@...adcom.com,
sumit.saxena@...adcom.com, shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com,
jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: Why is MEGASAS_SAS_QD set to 256?
Hi, Ming
在 2022/11/26 10:18, Ming Lei 写道:
>
> If you want aggressive merge on sequential IO workload, the queue depth need
> to be a bit less, then more requests can be staggered into scheduler queue,
> and merge chance is increased.
But if nr_requests >= queue_depth, it seems to me elevator will have no
effect, no request can be merged or sorted by scheduler, right?
>
> If you want good perf on random IO perf, the queue depth needs to
> be deep enough to have enough parallelism for saturating SSD internal.
>
> But we don't recognize sequential/random IO pattern, and usually fixed
> queue depth is used.
Is it possible to use none elevator and set large queue_depth if nvme is
used in this case?
Thansk,
Kuai
>
> Thanks,
> Ming
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists