linux-kernel - Re: Why is MEGASAS_SAS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 26 Nov 2022 14:08:56 +0800
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.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?



在 2022/11/26 14:08, Yu Kuai 写道:
> 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?
Sorry that should be nr_requests <= queue_depth.

>>
>> 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
>>
>> .
>>
> 
> .
>