On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 14:22 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 04:52 +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 15:15 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 16 2013, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 06:53 +0000, James Bottomley wrote: > > <SNIP> > > > > > > Lets start with discussing this on the list, please, and then see where > > > > > we go from there ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the discussion is beginning to make it's way to the list. I've > > > > mostly been waiting for blk-mq to get a wider review before taking the > > > > early scsi-mq prototype driver to a larger public audience. > > > > > > > > Primarily, I'm now reaching out to the people most effected by existing > > > > scsi_request_fn() based performance limitations. Most of them have > > > > abandoned existing scsi_request_fn() based logic in favor of raw block > > > > make_request() based drivers, and are now estimating the amount of > > > > effort to move to an scsi-mq based approach. > > > > > > > > Regardless, as the prototype progresses over the next months, having a > > > > face-to-face discussion with the key parties in the room would be very > > > > helpful given the large amount of effort involved to actually make this > > > > type of generational shift in SCSI actually happen. > > > > > > There's a certain amount of overlap with the aio/O_DIRECT work as well. > > > But if it's not a general session, could always be a BOF or something. > > > > > > I'll second the argument that most technical topics probably DO belong > > > in a topic related workshop. But that leaves us with basically only > > > process related topics at KS, I don't think it hurts to have a bit of > > > tech meat on the bone too. At least I personally miss that part of KS > > > from years gone by. > > > > Heh well, given that most of the block mq discussions at LSF have been > > you saying you really should get around to cleaning up and posting the > > code, you'll understand my wanting to see that happen first ... > > > > I suppose we could try to run a storage workshop within KS, but I think > > most of the mini summit slots have already gone. > > That would be great, given there is a reasonable level of interest from > various parities, and the pain threshold for existing scsi small block > random I/O performance is high.. > > When will we know if there is a workshop / mini summit slot available..? > > (CC'ing Mike Christie as well for open-iscsi/scsi-mq bits) > > > There's also plumbers > > if all slots are gone (I would say that, being biased and on the > > programme committee) Ric is running the storage and Filesystems MC > > > > http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2013/ocw/events/LPC2013/tracks/159 > > FYI, I'm not trying to 'sell' scsi-mq to the larger community yet, but > rather interested in getting the right scsi/block/LLD people in the same > room at KS for an hour or two to discuss implementation details, given > the scope of the effort involved. Well, so that's why I think plumbers might be a better venue: we'll have more of the actual storage people there. Usually we get at most 2-3 storage people to KS compared to the 25 or so we usually have at LSF ... that makes KS not a very good venue for storage centric discussions. James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
