From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0220CA9ED3 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB6921D71 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:49:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="d2tsn7Ao" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729959AbfKECty (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:49:54 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f194.google.com ([209.85.214.194]:35794 "EHLO mail-pl1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727861AbfKECtx (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:49:53 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f194.google.com with SMTP id x6so8635204pln.2 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:49:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T49R0h9T5fPg5hmMAjB311o5ZFPr6cvr6rmnaojgAKw=; b=d2tsn7Ao9KNemJ3MfMilEPAD7mzTnp42v2EVljOGcCUXUElErCUI8kIrJuJGNeGxtv AbYo0w4BaRWxpOJqUhZWje8w13RMmmOZ9b86SlB2GLcpd6l025BeGshwaMk0O/TlHLjc X1rJGS2nYPzOPGHC+iQihHc/lCImP6VgVfGTnnklcQhhTZb4SmoLc/iedDqee4Q4OjxU WLSr1orcuedTPpo+s3PbOE73be9bB6BSnbOK50u6ppJPyBqX7rmVciTKYCZz7ySlK4Xo Y8khaE/Tn6u1j1DpvLComiH2AGaRW0Z9HqlYkONQ/foc1W4it4IF4HHDftlYGdQGXNC2 9CWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=T49R0h9T5fPg5hmMAjB311o5ZFPr6cvr6rmnaojgAKw=; b=KH8DVpviC88nVjQDyj4BHqgfFhfKtVOaPdv6K7FLuNnvJvF0U0IoPPuH3HSxUZLNkx wsdrg2kzosfzq0dBPVXLZbWbGzSRs7qgjl3fF9VDT/9EbpiX6MXXMMcvfkErxuuXmIsd alxBnE8McpK+x82rWJEkSBXhLcMrbLHx8wG57lh+p7zVTTzEH5fqhLyFTvb3pqatRzb6 obWhMP5YoNidJ09jMsTWwu3lsYvtV7ZGcktBIi6J+V9SnNmTE9OJmegpl5NnOa03tnn8 KMTy+Aol5Nmkc7FWhKrdUIfN7iKx5D765kq4km9qKFlHp0mB72lp62cuTi3Ds5D2cKA9 jqQw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW17tfX98sUtWfzNWKL+zHg0Q3++OfDxWtfXwTuouN7EcTWF0yh tFEqyxUcM/sDOTQ2MeqVKfy6eA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx10sVrPPaUPWgS50ISuZzeLRJ7t1GyYI+51RBRb+WAEgCV1RgvpS2lDGS320UYTJNev5mbag== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9045:: with SMTP id w5mr31131847plz.304.1572922192940; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:49:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.188] ([66.219.217.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z18sm21667662pgv.90.2019.11.04.18.49.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:49:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] block: optimize for small block size IO To: Ming Lei , Kent Overstreet Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li , Keith Busch , linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org References: <20191102072911.24817-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20191104181403.GA8984@kmo-pixel> <20191104181541.GA21116@infradead.org> <20191104181742.GC8984@kmo-pixel> <20191104184217.GD8984@kmo-pixel> <20191105011135.GD11436@ming.t460p> <20191105021130.GB18564@moria.home.lan> <20191105022046.GF11436@ming.t460p> <20191105023002.GC18564@moria.home.lan> <20191105024641.GG11436@ming.t460p> From: Jens Axboe Message-ID: <06fc1a0c-8c8b-e7ab-f343-3861db737776@kernel.dk> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:49:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191105024641.GG11436@ming.t460p> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 11/4/19 7:46 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 09:30:02PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:20:46AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 09:11:30PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 09:11:35AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 01:42:17PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 11:23:42AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/4/19 11:17 AM, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 10:15:41AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 01:14:03PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 03:29:11PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> __blk_queue_split() may be a bit heavy for small block size(such as >>>>>>>>>>> 512B, or 4KB) IO, so introduce one flag to decide if this bio includes >>>>>>>>>>> multiple page. And only consider to try splitting this bio in case >>>>>>>>>>> that the multiple page flag is set. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, back in the day I had an alternative approach in mind: get rid of >>>>>>>>>> blk_queue_split entirely, by pushing splitting down to the request layer - when >>>>>>>>>> we map the bio/request to sgl, just have it map as much as will fit in the sgl >>>>>>>>>> and if it doesn't entirely fit bump bi_remaining and leave it on the request >>>>>>>>>> queue. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This would mean there'd be no need for counting segments at all, and would cut a >>>>>>>>>> fair amount of code out of the io path. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I thought about that to, but it will take a lot more effort. Mostly >>>>>>>>> because md/dm heavily rely on splitting as well. I still think it is >>>>>>>>> worthwhile, it will just take a significant amount of time and we >>>>>>>>> should have the quick improvement now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We can do it one driver at a time - driver sets a flag to disable >>>>>>>> blk_queue_split(). Obvious one to do first would be nvme since that's where it >>>>>>>> shows up the most. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And md/md do splitting internally, but I'm not so sure they need >>>>>>>> blk_queue_split(). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm a big proponent of doing something like that instead, but it is a >>>>>>> lot of work. I absolutely hate the splitting we're doing now, even >>>>>>> though the original "let's work as hard as we add add page time to get >>>>>>> things right" was pretty abysmal as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Last I looked I don't think it was going to be that bad, just needed a bit of >>>>>> finesse. We just need to be able to partially process a request in e.g. >>>>>> nvme_map_data(), and blk_rq_map_sg() needs to be modified to only map as much as >>>>>> will fit instead of popping an assertion. >>>>> >>>>> I think it may not be doable. >>>>> >>>>> blk_rq_map_sg() is called by drivers and has to work on single request, however >>>>> more requests have to be involved if we delay the splitting to blk_rq_map_sg(). >>>>> Cause splitting means that two bios can't be submitted in single IO request. >>>> >>>> Of course it's doable, do I have to show you how? >>> >>> No, you don't have to, could you just point out where my above words is wrong? >> >> blk_rq_map_sg() _currently_ works on a single request, but as I said from the >> start that this would involve changing it to only process as much of a request >> as would fit on an sglist. > >> Drivers will have to be modified, but the changes to driver code should be >> pretty easy. What will be slightly trickier will be changing blk-mq to handle >> requests that are only partially completed; that will be harder than it would >> have been before blk-mq, since the old request queue code used to handle >> partially completed requests - not much work would have to be done that code. > > Looks you are suggesting partial request completion. > > Then the biggest effect could be in performance, this change will cause the > whole FS bio is handled part by part serially, instead of submitting all > splitted bios(part) concurrently. > > So sounds you are suggesting to fix one performance issue by causing new perf > issue, is that doable? It does seem like a rat hole of sorts. Because then you start adding code to guesstimate how big the request could roughly be, and if you miss a bit, you get a request that's tiny in between the normal sized ones. Or you'd clone, and then you could still have them inflight in parallel. But then you're paying the cost of that... -- Jens Axboe