From: Liu Song <liusong@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: kbusch@kernel.org, sagi@grimberg.me,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] nvme: request remote is usually not involved for nvme devices
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 11:40:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e1d773e0-8964-dded-fbc1-b9f0a39bab8c@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220919143556.GA28122@lst.de>
On 2022/9/19 22:35, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 08:10:31AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> I'm not disagreeing with any of that, my point is just that you're
>> hacking around this in the nvme driver. This is problematic whenever
>> core changes happen, because now we have to touch individual drivers.
>> While the expectation is that there are no remote IPI completions for
>> NVMe, queue starved devices do exist and those do see remote
>> completions.
>>
>> This optimization belongs in the blk-mq core, not in nvme. I do think it
>> makes sense, you just need to solve it in blk-mq rather than in the nvme
>> driver.
> I'd also really see solid numbers to justify it.
>
> And btw, having more than one core per queue is quite common in
> nvme. Even many enterprise SSDs only have 64 queues, and some of
> the low-end consumers ones have very low number of queues that are
> not enough for the number of cores in even mid-end desktop CPUs.
Hi
Thank you for your suggestion. Here is what I think about it. NVMe
devices that can support
one core per queue are usually high-performance, so I prefer to make
more optimizations
for high-performance devices, while for ordinary consumption class NVMe
devices, such
modifications will not bring special additional overhead.
Thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-21 3:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-17 16:40 Liu Song
2022-09-17 16:50 ` Jens Axboe
2022-09-18 16:10 ` Liu Song
2022-09-19 14:10 ` Jens Axboe
2022-09-19 14:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-09-21 3:40 ` Liu Song [this message]
2022-09-21 3:32 ` [RFC PATCH] blk-mq: hctx has only one ctx mapping is no need to redirect the completion Liu Song
2022-09-22 6:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-09-22 7:17 ` Liu Song
2022-09-22 8:27 ` [RFC PATCH v2] " Liu Song
2022-09-24 15:03 ` [RFC PATCH] " 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=e1d773e0-8964-dded-fbc1-b9f0a39bab8c@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=liusong@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®