On 4 September 2017 at 09:06, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/09/17 16:28, Adrian Hunter wrote: >> On 01/09/17 15:58, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> + Christoph >>> >>> On 1 September 2017 at 13:42, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 31/08/17 14:56, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>>>> Here is V7 of the hardware command queue patches without the software >>>>> command queue patches, now using blk-mq. >>>>> >>>>> HW CMDQ offers 25% - 50% better random multi-threaded I/O. I see a slight >>>>> 2% drop in sequential read speed but no change to sequential write. >>>> >>>> Any comments? >>> >>> A couple of overall comments, for now. >>> >>> To make sure we don't overlook something when converting to mq, I >>> would prefer that we first convert the existing mmc block code to mq, >>> then we add CMDQ on top. >> >> That doesn't make sense. This patch set is not converting the legacy driver >> to mq therefore it cannot overlook anything for converting to mq. > > And then you go silent again. We have weekends in Sweden - and I also work on other things than mmc :-). I do however admit, that I could have been reviewing a bit faster throughout the re-spins. Apologize for that, but I am only doing my best. > > I can send blk-mq support for legacy requests in a few days if you like, but > I want to hear a better explanation of why you are delaying CQE support. That would be very nice, however be aware of that we are in the merge window, so I am not picking new material for 4.14 from this point. I assume you understand why. Still, big changes is always nice to queue up early for a release cycle. Let's aim for that! Moreover, I am not delaying CQE, but really want it to be merged asap! However, I am also having the role as a maintainer and the things that comes with it. For example, I would like the community to reach consensus around how to move forward with CQE, before I decide to pick it up. Kind regards Uffe
