On 10/10/2017 14:45, Ming Lei wrote:
Hi John,
All change in V6.2 is blk-mq/scsi-mq only, which shouldn't
affect non SCSI_MQ, so I suggest you to compare the perf
between deadline and mq-deadline, like Johannes mentioned.
>
> V6.2 series with default SCSI_MQ
> read, rw, write IOPS
> 700K
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:24:52PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 02:46, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > > > I tested this series for the SAS controller on HiSilicon hip07
> > > > > > platform as I
> > > > > > am interested in enabling MQ for this driver. Driver is
> > > > > > ./drivers/scsi/his
> Il giorno 10 ott 2017, alle ore 14:34, Johannes Thumshirn
> ha scritto:
>
> Hi John,
>
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:24:52PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
>> It's using cfq (for non-mq) and mq-deadline (obviously for mq).
>
> Please be aware that cfq and mq-deadline are _not_ comparable, for a re
Hi John,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 01:24:52PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> It's using cfq (for non-mq) and mq-deadline (obviously for mq).
Please be aware that cfq and mq-deadline are _not_ comparable, for a realistic
comparasion please use deadline and mq-deadline or cfq and bfq.
> root@(none)$ pwd
On 10/10/2017 02:46, Ming Lei wrote:
> > I tested this series for the SAS controller on HiSilicon hip07 platform as I
> > am interested in enabling MQ for this driver. Driver is
> > ./drivers/scsi/hisi_sas/.
> >
> > So I found that that performance is improved when enabling default SCSI_MQ
> > wi
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:04:39PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 01:09:22PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> > On 30/09/2017 11:27, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > Hi Jens,
> > >
> > > In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we
> > > found that I/O performance is m
Hi John,
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 01:09:22PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 30/09/2017 11:27, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we
> > found that I/O performance is much bad with mq-deadline, especially
> > about sequential I/O on some mult
On 30/09/2017 11:27, Ming Lei wrote:
Hi Jens,
In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we
found that I/O performance is much bad with mq-deadline, especially
about sequential I/O on some multi-queue SCSI devcies(lpfc, qla2xxx,
SRP...)
Turns out one big issue causes the performanc
On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 06:27:13PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we
> found that I/O performance is much bad with mq-deadline, especially
> about sequential I/O on some multi-queue SCSI devcies(lpfc, qla2xxx,
> SRP...)
>
> Turns out
Hi Jens,
In Red Hat internal storage test wrt. blk-mq scheduler, we
found that I/O performance is much bad with mq-deadline, especially
about sequential I/O on some multi-queue SCSI devcies(lpfc, qla2xxx,
SRP...)
Turns out one big issue causes the performance regression: requests
are still dequeu
10 matches
Mail list logo