Re: [PATCH] block: BFQ default for single queue devices

[Bart Van Assche]

On 10/5/18 2:16 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 04-10-18 15:42:52, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > What I think is missing is measurement results for BFQ on a system with
> > multiple CPU sockets and against a fast storage medium. Eliminating
> > the host lock from the SCSI core yielded a significant performance
> > improvement for such storage devices. Since the BFQ scheduler locks and
> > unlocks bfqd->lock for every dispatch operation it is very likely that BFQ
> > will slow down I/O for fast storage devices, even if their driver only
> > creates a single hardware queue.
>
> Well, I'm not sure why that is missing. I don't think anyone proposed to
> default to BFQ for such setup? Neither was anyone claiming that BFQ is
> better in such situation... The proposal has been: Default to BFQ for slow
> storage, leave it to deadline-mq otherwise.

Hi Jan,

How do you define slow storage? The proposal at the start of this thread 
was to make BFQ the default for all block devices that create a single 
hardware queue. That includes all SATA storage since scsi-mq only 
creates a single hardware queue when using the SATA protocol. The 
proposal to make BFQ the default for systems with a single hard disk 
probably makes sense but I am not sure that making BFQ the default for 
systems equipped with one or more (SATA) SSDs is also a good idea. 
Especially for multi-socket systems since BFQ reintroduces a queue-wide 
lock. As you know no queue-wide locking happens during I/O in the 
scsi-mq core nor in the blk-mq core.

Bart.