From: axboe@fb.com (Jens Axboe)
Subject: QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:14:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56588150.1080900@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <565868E7.2010807@suse.de>
On 11/27/2015 07:29 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015@4:13 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> while investigating the crash in scsi_lib.c I found a rather curious
>>> behaviour for QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE.
>>>
>>> While the flag is evaluated in blk_recalc_rq_segments and
>>> blk_recount_segments (resulting in nr_phys_segments being
>>> computed based on that flag) it is completely ignored
>>> during blk_rq_map_sg() or the actual merging itself.
>>
>> Yes, I guess Jens introduced the flag for decreasing CPU
>> consumption when comuputing segments, but it is still
>> ignored by blk_rq_map_sg(), but it may not be used
>> by some drivers.
>>
>> After bio splitting is introduced, the flag is also ignored
>> when computing segments.
>>
>>>
>>> This typically shouldn't be an issue, seeing that with
>>> QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE nr_phys_segments will always be
>>> larger than the actual segment count.
>>>
>>> However, it still makes me wonder:
>>> What is the point of having a QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE
>>> which doesn't work as advertised?
>>> Or, to be precise, which only works for blk-mq?
>>> Should we make it work for non-block-mq, too?
>>
>> Thanks bio splitting, this flag has little effect on performance now,
>> so I think it can be removed if Jens has no objection.
>>
> As per your suggestion we've made some performance measurements,
> and 4k fio showed little if no impact:
>
> NO_SG_MERGE:
> IOPS R/W: 148097.7+-125.7 / 148124.1+-123.1
> BW R/W: 592392.4+-502.7 / 592498.3+-492.3
> SG_MERGE:
> IOPS R/W: 148054.4+-123.3 / 148082.6+-120.0
> BW R/W: 592219.2+-493.5 / 592332.3+-479.7
>
> So the performance benefit lies squarely within the
> error margin, making me wonder if it's worth bothering
> with having the NO_SG_MERGE flag at all.
>
> Thanks to Johannes for doing the measurements :-)
150K iops is on the slow side, though. It's pointless to iterate the sg
list if we don't have to. I can try and run a few tests next week.
--
Jens Axboe
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:14:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56588150.1080900@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <565868E7.2010807@suse.de>
On 11/27/2015 07:29 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> while investigating the crash in scsi_lib.c I found a rather curious
>>> behaviour for QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE.
>>>
>>> While the flag is evaluated in blk_recalc_rq_segments and
>>> blk_recount_segments (resulting in nr_phys_segments being
>>> computed based on that flag) it is completely ignored
>>> during blk_rq_map_sg() or the actual merging itself.
>>
>> Yes, I guess Jens introduced the flag for decreasing CPU
>> consumption when comuputing segments, but it is still
>> ignored by blk_rq_map_sg(), but it may not be used
>> by some drivers.
>>
>> After bio splitting is introduced, the flag is also ignored
>> when computing segments.
>>
>>>
>>> This typically shouldn't be an issue, seeing that with
>>> QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE nr_phys_segments will always be
>>> larger than the actual segment count.
>>>
>>> However, it still makes me wonder:
>>> What is the point of having a QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE
>>> which doesn't work as advertised?
>>> Or, to be precise, which only works for blk-mq?
>>> Should we make it work for non-block-mq, too?
>>
>> Thanks bio splitting, this flag has little effect on performance now,
>> so I think it can be removed if Jens has no objection.
>>
> As per your suggestion we've made some performance measurements,
> and 4k fio showed little if no impact:
>
> NO_SG_MERGE:
> IOPS R/W: 148097.7+-125.7 / 148124.1+-123.1
> BW R/W: 592392.4+-502.7 / 592498.3+-492.3
> SG_MERGE:
> IOPS R/W: 148054.4+-123.3 / 148082.6+-120.0
> BW R/W: 592219.2+-493.5 / 592332.3+-479.7
>
> So the performance benefit lies squarely within the
> error margin, making me wonder if it's worth bothering
> with having the NO_SG_MERGE flag at all.
>
> Thanks to Johannes for doing the measurements :-)
150K iops is on the slow side, though. It's pointless to iterate the sg
list if we don't have to. I can try and run a few tests next week.
--
Jens Axboe
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 09:14:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56588150.1080900@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <565868E7.2010807@suse.de>
On 11/27/2015 07:29 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> while investigating the crash in scsi_lib.c I found a rather curious
>>> behaviour for QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE.
>>>
>>> While the flag is evaluated in blk_recalc_rq_segments and
>>> blk_recount_segments (resulting in nr_phys_segments being
>>> computed based on that flag) it is completely ignored
>>> during blk_rq_map_sg() or the actual merging itself.
>>
>> Yes, I guess Jens introduced the flag for decreasing CPU
>> consumption when comuputing segments, but it is still
>> ignored by blk_rq_map_sg(), but it may not be used
>> by some drivers.
>>
>> After bio splitting is introduced, the flag is also ignored
>> when computing segments.
>>
>>>
>>> This typically shouldn't be an issue, seeing that with
>>> QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE nr_phys_segments will always be
>>> larger than the actual segment count.
>>>
>>> However, it still makes me wonder:
>>> What is the point of having a QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE
>>> which doesn't work as advertised?
>>> Or, to be precise, which only works for blk-mq?
>>> Should we make it work for non-block-mq, too?
>>
>> Thanks bio splitting, this flag has little effect on performance now,
>> so I think it can be removed if Jens has no objection.
>>
> As per your suggestion we've made some performance measurements,
> and 4k fio showed little if no impact:
>
> NO_SG_MERGE:
> IOPS R/W: 148097.7+-125.7 / 148124.1+-123.1
> BW R/W: 592392.4+-502.7 / 592498.3+-492.3
> SG_MERGE:
> IOPS R/W: 148054.4+-123.3 / 148082.6+-120.0
> BW R/W: 592219.2+-493.5 / 592332.3+-479.7
>
> So the performance benefit lies squarely within the
> error margin, making me wonder if it's worth bothering
> with having the NO_SG_MERGE flag at all.
>
> Thanks to Johannes for doing the measurements :-)
150K iops is on the slow side, though. It's pointless to iterate the sg
list if we don't have to. I can try and run a few tests next week.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-27 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-26 8:13 QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-26 9:21 ` Ming Lei
2015-11-27 14:29 ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-27 14:29 ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-27 14:29 ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-27 16:14 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2015-11-27 16:14 ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-27 16:14 ` Jens Axboe
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=56588150.1080900@fb.com \
--to=axboe@fb.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.