From: Eric Wheeler <bcache@lists.ewheeler.net>
To: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>
Cc: colyli@suse.de, kent.overstreet@gmail.com, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] bcache: allow user to set QUEUE_FLAG_NOWAIT
Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 14:30:05 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <31bfee17-47f0-b1ca-eb0-baf0762b41e8@ewheeler.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230512095420.12578-2-kch@nvidia.com>
On Fri, 12 May 2023, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> Allow user to set the QUEUE_FLAG_NOWAIT optionally using module
> parameter to retain the default behaviour. Also, update respective
> allocation flags in the write path. Following are the performance
> numbers with io_uring fio engine for random read, note that device has
> been populated fully with randwrite workload before taking these
> numbers :-
>
> * linux-block (for-next) # grep IOPS bc-*fio | column -t
>
> nowait-off-1.fio: read: IOPS=482k, BW=1885MiB/s
> nowait-off-2.fio: read: IOPS=484k, BW=1889MiB/s
> nowait-off-3.fio: read: IOPS=483k, BW=1886MiB/s
>
> nowait-on-1.fio: read: IOPS=544k, BW=2125MiB/s
> nowait-on-2.fio: read: IOPS=547k, BW=2137MiB/s
> nowait-on-3.fio: read: IOPS=546k, BW=2132MiB/s
>
> * linux-block (for-next) # grep slat bc-*fio | column -t
>
> nowait-off-1.fio: slat (nsec): min=430, max=5488.5k, avg=2797.52
> nowait-off-2.fio: slat (nsec): min=431, max=8252.4k, avg=2805.33
> nowait-off-3.fio: slat (nsec): min=431, max=6846.6k, avg=2814.57
>
> nowait-on-1.fio: slat (usec): min=2, max=39086, avg=87.48
> nowait-on-2.fio: slat (usec): min=3, max=39519, avg=86.98
> nowait-on-3.fio: slat (usec): min=3, max=38880, avg=87.17
>
> * linux-block (for-next) # grep cpu bc-*fio | column -t
>
> nowait-off-1.fio: cpu : usr=2.77%, sys=6.57%, ctx=22015526
> nowait-off-2.fio: cpu : usr=2.75%, sys=6.59%, ctx=22003700
> nowait-off-3.fio: cpu : usr=2.81%, sys=6.57%, ctx=21938309
>
> nowait-on-1.fio: cpu : usr=1.08%, sys=78.39%, ctx=2744092
> nowait-on-2.fio: cpu : usr=1.10%, sys=79.76%, ctx=2537466
> nowait-on-3.fio: cpu : usr=1.10%, sys=79.88%, ctx=2528092
Wow, amazing for such a tiny patch. Especially the latency numbers! Given
this, maybe NOWAIT should be enabled by default.
Why would anyone want to use the old NOWAIT=off variant?
Are there benefits to going without NOWAIT that go unnoticed when testing
against a ramdisk?
For example, (and this seems unlikely) can NOWAIT affect the IO scheduler
in a way that would prevent sorted IOs headed toward a rotational disk?
It would be interesting to see two more test classes:
1. Ram disk cache with NVMe backing device.
2. NVMe cache with rotational HDD backing device.
-Eric
>
> Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/bcache/request.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> index 67a2e29e0b40..2055a23eb4b7 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/request.c
> @@ -716,9 +716,10 @@ static inline struct search *search_alloc(struct bio *bio,
> struct bcache_device *d, struct block_device *orig_bdev,
> unsigned long start_time)
> {
> + gfp_t gfp = bio->bi_opf & REQ_NOWAIT ? GFP_NOWAIT : GFP_NOIO;
> struct search *s;
>
> - s = mempool_alloc(&d->c->search, GFP_NOIO);
> + s = mempool_alloc(&d->c->search, gfp);
>
> closure_init(&s->cl, NULL);
> do_bio_hook(s, bio, request_endio);
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> index 7e9d19fd21dd..f76822bece26 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
>
> unsigned int bch_cutoff_writeback;
> unsigned int bch_cutoff_writeback_sync;
> +bool bch_nowait;
>
> static const char bcache_magic[] = {
> 0xc6, 0x85, 0x73, 0xf6, 0x4e, 0x1a, 0x45, 0xca,
> @@ -971,6 +972,8 @@ static int bcache_device_init(struct bcache_device *d, unsigned int block_size,
> }
>
> blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT, d->disk->queue);
> + if (bch_nowait)
> + blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_NOWAIT, d->disk->queue);
>
> blk_queue_write_cache(q, true, true);
>
> @@ -2933,6 +2936,9 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(bch_cutoff_writeback, "threshold to cutoff writeback");
> module_param(bch_cutoff_writeback_sync, uint, 0);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(bch_cutoff_writeback_sync, "hard threshold to cutoff writeback");
>
> +module_param(bch_nowait, bool, 0);
> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bch_nowait, "set QUEUE_FLAG_NOWAIT");
> +
> MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Bcache: a Linux block layer cache");
> MODULE_AUTHOR("Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>");
> MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
> --
> 2.40.0
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-13 21:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-12 9:54 [PATCH 0/1] bcache: allow user to set QUEUE_FLAG_NOWAIT Chaitanya Kulkarni
2023-05-12 9:54 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Chaitanya Kulkarni
2023-05-13 21:30 ` Eric Wheeler [this message]
2023-05-13 22:51 ` Chaitanya Kulkarni
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=31bfee17-47f0-b1ca-eb0-baf0762b41e8@ewheeler.net \
--to=bcache@lists.ewheeler.net \
--cc=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=kch@nvidia.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox