Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Message-ID: <8f239910-af73-4363-abca-d35c5d6d3216@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 08:23:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] Consider inflight IO in io accounting for high latency
 devices
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@oracle.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20231013195559.1306345-1-gulam.mohamed@oracle.com>
 <35e3e173-8018-42d8-a6e8-7ba994ff6b17@acm.org>
 <CO1PR10MB4563B1B650C89FA32B60AE1298D7A@CO1PR10MB4563.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
 <d10c329b-85c9-4bc2-be00-f156c48639e5@acm.org>
 <CO1PR10MB4563AA8AE670E9EDBF3AF32B98D6A@CO1PR10MB4563.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <CO1PR10MB4563AA8AE670E9EDBF3AF32B98D6A@CO1PR10MB4563.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/16/23 10:13 PM, Gulam Mohamed wrote:
> Hi Bart,
> 
> Thanks for the review. I agree, for low latency devices if they have
> single hardware queue, this patch will have significant impact. Can
> you please let me know about what kind of low latency devices will
> have a single queue (just for my knowledge)? Also I would be grateful
> if you have any suggestions to fix this issue?

I mentioned this last time, I'll do it again - please follow normal
mailing list etiquette. Don't top post, and don't do those
unreadable/unquotable "see replies inline".

As I told you last time as well, the problem with the approach is
exactly as Bart says - it's expensive. Because it's expensive, you limit
the fix to single queue devices and then hope that this is fine because
of some ill perceived notion that single queue devices must be slow, and
hence this isn't a big problem. But this both misses the fact that you
could very well have single queue devices that are much faster than the
one you used to test with. Those do exist.

This doesn't even address the fact that presumably this problem isn't
specific to single queue devices at all. You may only care about those,
but as a fix, it's lacking as it doesn't apply to devices across the
board.

-- 
Jens Axboe