From: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
hare@suse.de, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
osandov@osandov.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Addressing long-standing high-latency problems related to I/O
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:10:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e833f782-4db9-2de2-b7e8-99ddfb998936@sandisk.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdZqXTuPVs8mLLXE=G7VETe+K6MJDFYGTz_LnDWqaJik8g@mail.gmail.com>
On 09/16/2016 10:59 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> - What will subsystems (especially my pet peeve about MMC/SD
> which is single-queue by nature) that experience a performance
> regression with a switch to mq do? Not switch until mq has a
> scheduling policy? Switch and suck up the performance regression,
> multiplied by the number of Android handheld devices on the
> planet?
>
> I only have handwavy arguments about the latter being the
> case which is why I'm working on a patch to MMC/SD to
> switch to mq as an RFT. It's taking some time though, alas
> I'm not very smart.
Hello Linus,
What was your reference when comparing blk-mq MMC/SD performance with
the current implementation? Which I/O scheduler was used when measuring
performance with the traditional block layer? If it was not noop, how
does blk-mq performance of MMC/SD compare to the performance of the
current implementation with noop scheduler?
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-16 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-16 7:55 Paolo Valente
2016-09-16 8:24 ` Greg KH
2016-09-16 8:59 ` Linus Walleij
2016-09-16 9:10 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2016-09-16 11:24 ` Linus Walleij
2016-09-16 11:46 ` Arnd Bergmann
2016-09-16 13:10 ` Paolo Valente
2016-09-16 13:36 ` Linus Walleij
2016-09-16 11:53 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-09-22 9:18 ` Ulf Hansson
2016-09-22 11:06 ` Linus Walleij
2016-09-16 15:15 ` James Bottomley
2016-09-16 18:48 ` Paolo Valente
2016-09-16 19:36 ` James Bottomley
2016-09-16 20:13 ` Paolo Valente
2016-09-19 8:17 ` Jan Kara
2016-09-17 10:31 ` Linus Walleij
2016-09-21 13:51 ` Grant Likely
2016-09-21 14:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-09-21 14:37 ` Paolo Valente
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=e833f782-4db9-2de2-b7e8-99ddfb998936@sandisk.com \
--to=bart.vanassche@sandisk.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=b.zolnierkie@samsung.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=osandov@osandov.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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