[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y4MxEcF+DWCAgxGJ@T590>
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 17:42:41 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: 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?
On Sat, Nov 26, 2022 at 02:08:02PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> 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?
Yeah.
If nr_requests <= queue_depth, every request can be queued to
driver/device, so requests won't be merged by scheduler.
But plug merge still works if IOs are submitted as batch.
> >
> > 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?
Yeah, if the storage is SSD, usually none with bigger queue_depth should
help, and usually 256 should be enough to saturate one single SSD for
one well implemented driver.
Thanks
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists