All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
To: David Strand <dpstrand@gmail.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Cc: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: fragmented i/o with 2.6.31?
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:02:39 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AB1ED1F.1010203@ct.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448b15030909160922o84c2d6gc8ead8226dd8777a@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David, Mike, Alasdair,

On 09/17/2009 01:22 AM +0900, David Strand wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 8:34 AM, David Strand <dpstrand@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am issuing 512 Kbyte reads through the device mapper device node to
>> a fibre channel disk. With 2.6.30 one read command for the entire 512
>> Kbyte length is placed on the wire. With 2.6.31 this is being broken
>> up into 5 smaller read commands placed on the wire, decreasing
>> performance.
>>
>> This is especially penalizing on some disks where we have prefetch
>> turned off via the scsi mode page. Is there any easy way (through
>> configuration or sysfs) to restore the single read per i/o behavior
>> that I used to get?
>
> I should note that I am using dm-mpath, and the i/o is fragmented on
> the wire when using the device mapper device node but it is not
> fragmented when using one of the regular /dev/sd* device nodes for
> that device.

David,
Thank you for reporting this.
I found on my test machine that max_sectors is set to SAFE_MAX_SECTORS,
which limits the I/O size small.
The attached patch fixes it.  I guess the patch (and increasing
read-ahead size in /sys/block/dm-<n>/queue/read_ahead_kb) will solve
your fragmentation issue.  Please try it.


Mike, Alasdair,
I found that max_sectors and max_hw_sectors of dm device are set
in smaller values than those of underlying devices.  E.g:
    # cat /sys/block/sdj/queue/max_sectors_kb
    512
    # cat /sys/block/sdj/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb
    32767
    # echo "0 10 linear /dev/sdj 0" | dmsetup create test
    # cat /sys/block/dm-0/queue/max_sectors_kb
    127
    # cat /sys/block/dm-0/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb
    127
This prevents the I/O size of struct request from becoming enough big
size, and causes undesired request fragmentation in request-based dm.

This should be caused by the queue_limits stacking.
In dm_calculate_queue_limits(), the block-layer's small default size
is included in the merging process of target's queue_limits.
So underlying queue_limits is not propagated correctly.

I think initializing default values of all max_* in '0' is an easy fix.
Do you think my patch is acceptable?
Any other idea to fix this problem?

Signed-off-by: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
Cc: David Strand <dpstrand@gmail.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
Cc: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/md/dm-table.c |    4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

Index: 2.6.31/drivers/md/dm-table.c
===================================================================
--- 2.6.31.orig/drivers/md/dm-table.c
+++ 2.6.31/drivers/md/dm-table.c
@@ -992,9 +992,13 @@ int dm_calculate_queue_limits(struct dm_
 	unsigned i = 0;
 
 	blk_set_default_limits(limits);
+	limits->max_sectors = 0;
+	limits->max_hw_sectors = 0;
 
 	while (i < dm_table_get_num_targets(table)) {
 		blk_set_default_limits(&ti_limits);
+		ti_limits.max_sectors = 0;
+		ti_limits.max_hw_sectors = 0;
 
 		ti = dm_table_get_target(table, i++);
 

  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-17  8:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-16 15:34 fragmented i/o with 2.6.31? David Strand
2009-09-16 16:22 ` David Strand
2009-09-17  8:02   ` Kiyoshi Ueda [this message]
2009-09-17  9:14     ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2009-09-17 13:11       ` Mike Snitzer
2009-09-17 17:32         ` David Strand
2009-09-18  6:00         ` Martin K. Petersen
2009-09-18 14:30           ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2009-09-18 15:06           ` Mike Snitzer
2009-09-18 15:38             ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2009-09-18 15:57               ` Mike Snitzer
2009-09-18 16:55                 ` Jun'ichi Nomura

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=4AB1ED1F.1010203@ct.jp.nec.com \
    --to=k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=dpstrand@gmail.com \
    --cc=snitzer@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.