On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 09:52 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:28:25AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:08:20PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > The patch below is not a full solution but resulted in a significant
> > > improvement in my tests:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> > > index 69e3226e66ca..9d86876ec503 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> > > @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ void blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > > * TODO: get more budgets, and dequeue more requests in
> > > * one time.
> > > */
> > > + blk_mq_sched_mark_restart_hctx(hctx);
> > > blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(hctx);
> > > } else {
> > > blk_mq_flush_busy_ctxs(hctx, &rq_list);
>
> BTW, this kind of change can't cover scsi_set_blocked() which is
> triggered by timeout, scsi dispatch failure. You will see that
> easily if you run the SCSI test script I provided in the commit log.
Hello Ming,
I am aware that the above change does not cover all cases. That's why I wrote
in my previous e-mail that that patch is not a full solution. The reason I
posted that change anyway is because I prefer a solution that is not based on
delayed queue runs over a solution that is based on delayed queue runs
(blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue()). My concern is that performance of a solution
based on delayed queue runs will be suboptimal.
Bart.
