From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Robert Elliott <elliott@hp.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] blk-mq: Use all available hardware queues
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 09:10:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54871F0B.7080208@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54871C59.3050903@acm.org>
On 12/09/2014 08:59 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Suppose that a system has two CPU sockets, three cores per socket,
> that it does not support hyperthreading and that four hardware
> queues are provided by a block driver. With the current algorithm
> this will lead to the following assignment of CPU cores to hardware
> queues:
>
> HWQ 0: 0 1
> HWQ 1: 2 3
> HWQ 2: 4 5
> HWQ 3: (none)
>
> This patch changes the queue assignment into:
>
> HWQ 0: 0 1
> HWQ 1: 2
> HWQ 2: 3 4
> HWQ 3: 5
>
> In other words, this patch has the following three effects:
> - All four hardware queues are used instead of only three.
> - CPU cores are spread more evenly over hardware queues. For the
> above example the range of the number of CPU cores associated
> with a single HWQ is reduced from [0..2] to [1..2].
> - If the number of HWQ's is a multiple of the number of CPU sockets
> it is now guaranteed that all CPU cores associated with a single
> HWQ reside on the same CPU socket.
I have thought about this since your last posting, and I think it should
be a win for most cases to do this, even if we end up with asymmetric
queue <-> cpu mappings.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-09 16:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-09 15:57 [PATCH 0/6] Six blk-mq patches Bart Van Assche
2014-12-09 15:57 ` [PATCH 1/6] blk-mq: Fix a use-after-free Bart Van Assche
2014-12-09 15:58 ` [PATCH 2/6] blk-mq: Avoid that __bt_get_word() wraps multiple times Bart Van Assche
2014-12-09 15:58 ` [PATCH 3/6] blk-mq: Fix a race between bt_clear_tag() and bt_get() Bart Van Assche
2014-12-09 15:58 ` [PATCH 4/6] blk-mq: Avoid that I/O hangs in bt_get() Bart Van Assche
2014-12-09 16:10 ` Jens Axboe
2014-12-09 15:59 ` [PATCH 5/6] blk-mq: Use all available hardware queues Bart Van Assche
2014-12-09 16:10 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2014-12-09 15:59 ` [PATCH 6/6] blk-mq: Micro-optimize bt_get() Bart Van Assche
2014-12-09 16:06 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54871F0B.7080208@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=agordeev@redhat.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=elliott@hp.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome