linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Eric Wheeler <bcache@lists.ewheeler.net>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>,
	Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
	linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
	Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer@linbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] block: fix blk_queue_split() resource exhaustion
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:32:33 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160713023232.GA6034@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.11.1607121834220.16228@mail.ewheeler.net>

On Tue, Jul 12 2016 at 10:18pm -0400,
Eric Wheeler <bcache@lists.ewheeler.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, NeilBrown wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 12 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > ....
> > >
> > > Instead, I suggest to distinguish between recursive calls to
> > > generic_make_request(), and pushing back the remainder part in
> > > blk_queue_split(), by pointing current->bio_lists to a
> > > 	struct recursion_to_iteration_bio_lists {
> > > 		struct bio_list recursion;
> > > 		struct bio_list queue;
> > > 	}
> > >
> > > By providing each q->make_request_fn() with an empty "recursion"
> > > bio_list, then merging any recursively submitted bios to the
> > > head of the "queue" list, we can make the recursion-to-iteration
> > > logic in generic_make_request() process deepest level bios first,
> > > and "sibling" bios of the same level in "natural" order.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer@linbit.com>
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>
> > 
> > Thanks again for doing this - I think this is a very significant
> > improvement and could allow other simplifications.
> 
> Thank you Lars for all of this work!  
> 
> It seems like there have been many 4.3+ blockdev stacking issues and this 
> will certainly address some of those (maybe all of them?).  (I think we 
> hit this while trying drbd in 4.4 so we dropped back to 4.1 without 
> issue.)  It would be great to hear 4.4.y stable pick this up if 
> compatible.
> 
> 
> Do you believe that this patch would solve any of the proposals by others 
> since 4.3 related to bio splitting/large bios?  I've been collecting a 
> list, none of which appear have landed yet as of 4.7-rc7 (but correct me 
> if I'm wrong):
> 
> A.  [PATCH v2] block: make sure big bio is splitted into at most 256 bvecs
> 	by Ming Lei: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9169483/
> 
> B.  block: don't make BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS too big
> 	by Shaohua Li: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bcache/msg03525.html
> 
> C.  [1/3] block: flush queued bios when process blocks to avoid deadlock
> 	by Mikulas Patocka: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9204125/
> 		(was https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7398411/)
> 
> D.  dm-crypt: Fix error with too large bios
> 	by Mikulas Patocka: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9138595/
> 
> The A,B,D are known to fix large bio issues when stacking dm+bcache 
> (though the B,D are trivial and probably necessary even with your patch).
> 
> Patch C was mentioned earlier in this thread by Mike Snitzer and you 
> commented briefly that his patch might solve the issue; given that, and in 
> the interest of minimizing duplicate effort, which of the following best 
> describes the situation?
> 
>   1. Your patch could supersede Mikulas's patch; they address the same 
> issue.
> 
>   2. Mikulas's patch addresses different issues such and both patches 
> should be applied.
> 
>   3. There is overlap between both your patch and Mikulas's such that both 
> #1,#2 are true and effort to solve this has been duplicated.
> 
> 
> If #3, then what might be done to resolve the overlap?

Mikulas confirmed to me that he believes Lars' v2 patch will fix the
dm-snapshot problem, which is being tracked with this BZ:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119841

We'll see how testing goes (currently underway).

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-13  2:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-08 15:04 [PATCH 0/1] block: fix blk_queue_split() resource exhaustion Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-08 15:04 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-08 18:49   ` Mike Snitzer
2016-07-11 14:13     ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-11 14:10   ` [PATCH v2 " Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-12  2:55     ` [dm-devel] " NeilBrown
2016-07-13  2:18       ` Eric Wheeler
2016-07-13  2:32         ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2016-07-19  9:00           ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-21 22:53             ` Eric Wheeler
2016-07-25 20:39               ` Jeff Moyer
2016-08-11  4:16             ` Eric Wheeler
2017-01-07 19:56             ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-12-23  8:49     ` Michael Wang
2016-12-23 11:45       ` Lars Ellenberg
2017-01-02 14:33         ` [dm-devel] " Jack Wang
2017-01-04  5:12           ` NeilBrown
2017-01-04 18:50             ` Mike Snitzer
2017-01-05 10:54               ` 王金浦
2017-01-06 16:50               ` Mikulas Patocka
2017-01-06 17:34                 ` Mikulas Patocka
2017-01-06 19:52                   ` Mike Snitzer
2017-01-06 23:01                     ` NeilBrown

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=20160713023232.GA6034@redhat.com \
    --to=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bcache@lists.ewheeler.net \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com \
    --cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
    --cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
    --cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=lars.ellenberg@linbit.com \
    --cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=roland.kammerer@linbit.com \
    --cc=shli@kernel.org \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.de \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).