From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
Cc: "tom.leiming@gmail.com" <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
"sagi@grimberg.me" <sagi@grimberg.me>,
"snitzer@redhat.com" <snitzer@redhat.com>,
"martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"axboe@fb.com" <axboe@fb.com>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
"jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"loberman@redhat.com" <loberman@redhat.com>,
"dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] block: don't call blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() in case of BLK_STS_RESOURCE
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:44:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170919224410.GA21829@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1505846549.2671.52.camel@wdc.com>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 06:42:30PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 00:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Bart Van Assche
> > <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 00:04 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > Run queue at end_io is definitely wrong, because blk-mq has SCHED_RESTART
> > > > to do that already.
> > >
> > > Sorry but I disagree. If SCHED_RESTART is set that causes the blk-mq core to
> > > reexamine the software queues and the hctx dispatch list but not the requeue
> > > list. If a block driver returns BLK_STS_RESOURCE then requests end up on the
> > > requeue list. Hence the following code in scsi_end_request():
> >
> > That doesn't need SCHED_RESTART, because it is requeue's
> > responsibility to do that,
> > see blk_mq_requeue_work(), which will run hw queue at the end of this func.
>
> That's not what I was trying to explain. What I was trying to explain is that
> every block driver that can cause a request to end up on the requeue list is
> responsible for kicking the requeue list at a later time. Hence the
> kblockd_schedule_work(&sdev->requeue_work) call in the SCSI core and the
> blk_mq_kick_requeue_list() and blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list() calls in the
> dm code. What I would like to see is measurement results for dm-mpath without
> this patch series and a call to kick the requeue list added to the dm-mpath
> end_io code.
For this issue, it isn't same between SCSI and dm-rq.
We don't need to run queue in .end_io of dm, and the theory is
simple, otherwise it isn't performance issue, and should be I/O hang.
1) every dm-rq's request is 1:1 mapped to SCSI's request
2) if there is any mapped SCSI request not finished, either
in-flight or in requeue list or whatever, there will be one
corresponding dm-rq's request in-flight
3) once the mapped SCSI request is completed, dm-rq's completion
path will be triggered and dm-rq's queue will be rerun because of
SCHED_RESTART in dm-rq
So the hw queue of dm-rq has been run in dm-rq's completion path
already, right? Why do we need to do it again in the hot path?
--
Ming
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ming.lei@redhat.com (Ming Lei)
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] block: don't call blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() in case of BLK_STS_RESOURCE
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:44:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170919224410.GA21829@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1505846549.2671.52.camel@wdc.com>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017@06:42:30PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-20@00:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Bart Van Assche
> > <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-09-20@00:04 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > Run queue at end_io is definitely wrong, because blk-mq has SCHED_RESTART
> > > > to do that already.
> > >
> > > Sorry but I disagree. If SCHED_RESTART is set that causes the blk-mq core to
> > > reexamine the software queues and the hctx dispatch list but not the requeue
> > > list. If a block driver returns BLK_STS_RESOURCE then requests end up on the
> > > requeue list. Hence the following code in scsi_end_request():
> >
> > That doesn't need SCHED_RESTART, because it is requeue's
> > responsibility to do that,
> > see blk_mq_requeue_work(), which will run hw queue at the end of this func.
>
> That's not what I was trying to explain. What I was trying to explain is that
> every block driver that can cause a request to end up on the requeue list is
> responsible for kicking the requeue list at a later time. Hence the
> kblockd_schedule_work(&sdev->requeue_work) call in the SCSI core and the
> blk_mq_kick_requeue_list() and blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list() calls in the
> dm code. What I would like to see is measurement results for dm-mpath without
> this patch series and a call to kick the requeue list added to the dm-mpath
> end_io code.
For this issue, it isn't same between SCSI and dm-rq.
We don't need to run queue in .end_io of dm, and the theory is
simple, otherwise it isn't performance issue, and should be I/O hang.
1) every dm-rq's request is 1:1 mapped to SCSI's request
2) if there is any mapped SCSI request not finished, either
in-flight or in requeue list or whatever, there will be one
corresponding dm-rq's request in-flight
3) once the mapped SCSI request is completed, dm-rq's completion
path will be triggered and dm-rq's queue will be rerun because of
SCHED_RESTART in dm-rq
So the hw queue of dm-rq has been run in dm-rq's completion path
already, right? Why do we need to do it again in the hot path?
--
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-19 22:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-15 16:44 [PATCH 0/5] dm-mpath: improve I/O schedule Ming Lei
2017-09-15 16:44 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 1/5] block: don't call blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() in case of BLK_STS_RESOURCE Ming Lei
2017-09-15 16:44 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-15 17:57 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 17:57 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 17:57 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-17 12:40 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-17 12:40 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-18 15:18 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-18 15:18 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-18 15:18 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 5:43 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 5:43 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 15:36 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 15:36 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 15:36 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 15:56 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 15:56 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 16:04 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 16:04 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 16:49 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 16:49 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 16:49 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 16:55 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 16:55 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 18:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 18:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 18:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 22:44 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2017-09-19 22:44 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 23:25 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 23:25 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 23:25 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 23:50 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 23:50 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-20 1:13 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-20 1:13 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-20 1:19 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-20 1:19 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 15:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 15:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 15:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 15:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 15:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 16:03 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 16:03 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 16:07 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 16:07 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 2/5] dm-mpath: return DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE in case of rq allocation failure Ming Lei
2017-09-15 17:29 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 17:29 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 20:06 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-15 20:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 20:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-17 13:23 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 14:41 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 15:56 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-17 12:51 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 3/5] dm-mpath: remove annoying message of 'blk_get_request() returned -11' Ming Lei
2017-09-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 4/5] block: export blk_update_nr_requests Ming Lei
2017-09-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 5/5] dm-mpath: improve I/O schedule Ming Lei
2017-09-15 20:10 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-15 20:56 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 20:56 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 21:06 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 21:06 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 21:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-15 21:42 ` Bart Van Assche
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=20170919224410.GA21829@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loberman@redhat.com \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.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.