On 1/18/24 11:31 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 1/18/24 10:04, Jens Axboe wrote: >> If we attempt to insert a list of requests but someone else is already >> running an insertion, then fallback to queueing it internally and let >> the existing inserter finish the operation. > > Because this patch adds significant complexity: what are the use cases > that benefit from this kind of optimization? Are these perhaps workloads > on systems with many CPU cores and fast storage? If the storage is fast, > why to use mq-deadline instead of "none" as I/O-scheduler? You and others complain that mq-deadline is slow and doesn't scale, these two patches help improve that situation. Not sure why this is even a question? -- Jens Axboe
