From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>,
Laurence Oberman <loberman@redhat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: dm-rq: do not update rq partially in each ending bio
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:32:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170825163233.GB1900@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170825160850.GA13937@ming.t460p>
On Fri, Aug 25 2017 at 12:08pm -0400,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:48:39AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25 2017 at 11:27am -0400,
> > Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > We don't need to update orignal dm request partially
> > > when ending each cloned bio, and this patch just
> > > updates orignal dm request once when the whole
> > > cloned request is finished.
> > >
> > > Partial request update can be a bit expensive, so
> > > we should try to avoid it, especially it is run
> > > in softirq context.
> > >
> > > After this patch is applied, both hard lockup and
> > > soft lockup aren't reproduced any more in one hour
> > > of running Laurence's test[1] on IB/SRP. Without
> > > this patch, the lockup can be reproduced in several
> > > minutes.
> > >
> > > BTW, after d4acf3650c7c(block: Make blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list()
> > > rerun the queue at a quiet time), we need to make the
> > > test more aggressive for reproducing the lockup:
> > >
> > > 1) run hammer_write.sh 32 or 64 concurrently.
> > > 2) write 8M each time
> > >
> > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=150220185510245&w=2
> >
> > Bart said he cannot reproduce the lockups with his patchset applied.
> > Have you tested using Bart's patchset?
>
> d4acf3650c7c(block: Make blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list() rerun the
> queue at a quiet time) has been in linus tree.
>
> For other patches, I didn't test it yet. Because every time
> when the lockup is triggered, it is always in blk_recalc_rq_segments(),
> and not see any patch is dealing with that.
Please test with all of Bart's patches applied!
> > Comments inlined below.
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/md/dm-rq.c | 15 +++++----------
> > > drivers/md/dm-rq.h | 1 +
> > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-rq.c b/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> > > index c6ebc5b1e00e..50cd96c7de45 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> > > @@ -117,9 +117,9 @@ static void end_clone_bio(struct bio *clone)
> > > struct dm_rq_clone_bio_info *info =
> > > container_of(clone, struct dm_rq_clone_bio_info, clone);
> > > struct dm_rq_target_io *tio = info->tio;
> > > - struct bio *bio = info->orig;
> > > unsigned int nr_bytes = info->orig->bi_iter.bi_size;
> > > blk_status_t error = clone->bi_status;
> > > + bool is_last = !clone->bi_next;
> > >
> > > bio_put(clone);
> > >
> > > @@ -144,21 +144,15 @@ static void end_clone_bio(struct bio *clone)
> > > * I/O for the bio successfully completed.
> > > * Notice the data completion to the upper layer.
> > > */
> > > -
> > > - /*
> > > - * bios are processed from the head of the list.
> > > - * So the completing bio should always be rq->bio.
> > > - * If it's not, something wrong is happening.
> > > - */
> > > - if (tio->orig->bio != bio)
> > > - DMERR("bio completion is going in the middle of the request");
> >
> > Why did you remove this check?
>
> The check isn't valid any more because this patch only update
> original dm rq in .end_bio() of the last cloned bio.
Fair enough, so just a side-effect of your all or nothing completion handling.
> >
> > > + tio->completed += nr_bytes;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Update the original request.
> > > * Do not use blk_end_request() here, because it may complete
> > > * the original request before the clone, and break the ordering.
> > > */
> > > - blk_update_request(tio->orig, BLK_STS_OK, nr_bytes);
> > > + if (is_last)
> > > + blk_update_request(tio->orig, BLK_STS_OK, tio->completed);
> > > }
> >
> > Partial completion support is important given the potential for path
> > failures interrupting requests. Why do you think it is OK to avoid it
> > by switching to an all or nothing approach?
>
> If the cloned rq is partially completed, this dm rq is still partially
> completed. This patch only update dm rq in the last cloned bio's
> .end_io().
Which is exactly what we do _not_ want because it removed partial
completion. Which is an important feature of DM multipath. Christoph
echoed its importance some time ago:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2015-May/msg00228.html
> Also if one middle cloned bio is completed with error, the current
> implementation doesn't update dm rq any more from that bio, so
> looks the following patch is consistent with current
> implementation, what do you think of it?
Not seeing how. Yes, the current implementation will not account for a
part of the request that failed. That is fine.. the bio failed, so
nothing to update!
So no, I don't understand why you've added the 'exit' goto to update the
request on error. If the request is to be failed upgrades it'll get
updated as a side-effect of that completion due to error (if multipath
is configured to fail_if_no_path or whatever).
Mike
> From 2b5ef7e64ba8595c0c58790d14fd77b10a28afee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 20:19:52 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] dm-rq: do not update rq partially in each ending bio
>
> We don't need to update orignal dm request partially
> when ending each cloned bio, and this patch just
> updates orignal dm request once when the whole
> cloned request is finished.
>
> Partial request update can be a bit expensive, so
> we should try to avoid it, especially it is run
> in softirq context.
>
> After this patch is applied, both hard lockup and
> soft lockup aren't reproduced any more in one hour
> of running Laurence's test[1] on IB/SRP. Without
> this patch, the lockup can be reproduced in several
> minutes.
>
> BTW, after d4acf3650c7c(block: Make blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list()
> rerun the queue at a quiet time), we need to make the
> test more aggressive for reproducing the lockup:
>
> 1) run hammer_write.sh 32 or 64 concurrently.
> 2) write 8M each time
>
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=150220185510245&w=2
>
> Cc: Laurence Oberman <loberman@redhat.com>
> Cc: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
> Cc: "dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>
> Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> Cc: Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/dm-rq.c | 18 +++++++-----------
> drivers/md/dm-rq.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-rq.c b/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> index c6ebc5b1e00e..72396b0ce485 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> @@ -117,9 +117,9 @@ static void end_clone_bio(struct bio *clone)
> struct dm_rq_clone_bio_info *info =
> container_of(clone, struct dm_rq_clone_bio_info, clone);
> struct dm_rq_target_io *tio = info->tio;
> - struct bio *bio = info->orig;
> unsigned int nr_bytes = info->orig->bi_iter.bi_size;
> blk_status_t error = clone->bi_status;
> + bool is_last = !clone->bi_next;
>
> bio_put(clone);
>
> @@ -137,28 +137,23 @@ static void end_clone_bio(struct bio *clone)
> * when the request is completed.
> */
> tio->error = error;
> - return;
> + goto exit;
> }
>
> /*
> * I/O for the bio successfully completed.
> * Notice the data completion to the upper layer.
> */
> -
> - /*
> - * bios are processed from the head of the list.
> - * So the completing bio should always be rq->bio.
> - * If it's not, something wrong is happening.
> - */
> - if (tio->orig->bio != bio)
> - DMERR("bio completion is going in the middle of the request");
> + tio->completed += nr_bytes;
>
> /*
> * Update the original request.
> * Do not use blk_end_request() here, because it may complete
> * the original request before the clone, and break the ordering.
> */
> - blk_update_request(tio->orig, BLK_STS_OK, nr_bytes);
> + if (is_last)
> + exit:
> + blk_update_request(tio->orig, BLK_STS_OK, tio->completed);
> }
>
> static struct dm_rq_target_io *tio_from_request(struct request *rq)
> @@ -455,6 +450,7 @@ static void init_tio(struct dm_rq_target_io *tio, struct request *rq,
> tio->clone = NULL;
> tio->orig = rq;
> tio->error = 0;
> + tio->completed = 0;
> /*
> * Avoid initializing info for blk-mq; it passes
> * target-specific data through info.ptr
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-rq.h b/drivers/md/dm-rq.h
> index 9813922e4fe5..f43c45460aac 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-rq.h
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-rq.h
> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ struct dm_rq_target_io {
> struct dm_stats_aux stats_aux;
> unsigned long duration_jiffies;
> unsigned n_sectors;
> + unsigned completed;
> };
>
> /*
> --
> 2.9.5
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-25 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-25 15:27 [PATCH] dm-rq: do not update rq partially in each ending bio Ming Lei
2017-08-25 15:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-08-25 16:08 ` Ming Lei
2017-08-25 16:08 ` Ming Lei
2017-08-25 16:32 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2017-08-25 17:07 ` Ming Lei
2017-08-25 17:14 ` Ming Lei
2017-08-25 17:57 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-08-25 17:57 ` Mike Snitzer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170825163233.GB1900@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=bart.vanassche@sandisk.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loberman@redhat.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.