Re: [GIT PULL] Queue free fix (was Re: [PATCH] block: Free queueresources at blk_release_queue())

[Jens Axboe]

On 2011-09-28 21:05, Eric Seppanen wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Right now on high iops device queue_lock is the major killer for
>> performance.  It's one major reason (*) why a lot of the high iops devices
>> are all moving to ->make_request, which has other issues.
>>
>> (*) others are struct request allocation and the pointless merge hash
> 
> I agree: queue lock is the worst performance killer when hw can do
>> 100K IOPS per block device.
> 
> Rather than just being chased away from the request queue due to
> performance issues, I could argue there's very little point to having
> a queue for devices that
> (a) have no seek penalty (and always use noop elevator)
> (b) have hardware queues at least as deep as the default request queue
> (c) don't benefit from merging
> 
> (c) is maybe debatable, but if a device can saturate its bus bandwidth
> on 4KB IO, the latency is probably not worth it.

I agree on a+b, but c is definitely more than debatable. I have yet to
see a device saturate its bandwidth on 4KB IOS. So merging on the write
side is always going to be a win.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/