On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 10:40:26AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote: > So far two use cases have been identified: setups with an UFSHCI 3.0 > host controller and ATA controllers for which all storage devices have > similar latency characteristics. Both storage controllers have a queue > depth limit of 32 commands. > > It seems to me that disabling fair sharing will always result in better > performance than any algorithm that realizes fair sharing (including the > current algorithm). Fair sharing by definition is always faster than not doing fair sharing, that is not the point. The point is why you think fair sharing is not actually required for these particular setups only.
