public inbox for linux-block@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] block/mq-deadline: Prevent zoned write reordering due to I/O prioritization
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:05:38 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6d2e8aaa-3e0e-4f8e-8295-0f74b65f23ae@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54a920d3-08e3-4810-806d-2961110d876d@acm.org>

On 12/20/23 02:42, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 12/19/23 04:10, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 01:13:42PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> Assigning I/O priorities with the ioprio cgroup policy may cause
>>> different I/O priorities to be assigned to write requests for the same
>>> zone. Prevent that this causes unaligned write errors by adding zoned
>>> writes for the same zone in the same priority queue as prior zoned
>>> writes.
>>
>> I still think this is fundamentally the wrong thing to do.  If you set
>> different priorities, you want I/O to be reordered, so ignoring that
>> is a bad thing.
> 
> Hi Christoph,
> 
> How about not setting the I/O priority of sequential zoned writes as in
> the (untested) patch below?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 
> 
> [PATCH] block: Do not set the I/O priority for sequential zoned writes
> 
> ---
>   block/blk-mq.c         |  7 +++++++
>   include/linux/blk-mq.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index c11c97afa0bc..668888103a47 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -2922,6 +2922,13 @@ static bool blk_mq_can_use_cached_rq(struct request *rq, struct blk_plug *plug,
> 
>   static void bio_set_ioprio(struct bio *bio)
>   {
> +	/*
> +	 * Do not set the I/O priority of sequential zoned write bios because
> +	 * this could lead to reordering and hence to unaligned write errors.
> +	 */
> +	if (blk_bio_is_seq_zoned_write(bio))
> +		return;

That is not acceptable as that will ignore priorities passed for async direct
IOs through aio->aio_reqprio. That one is a perfectly acceptable use case and we
should not ignore it.

> +
>   	/* Nobody set ioprio so far? Initialize it based on task's nice value */
>   	if (IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(bio->bi_ioprio) == IOPRIO_CLASS_NONE)
>   		bio->bi_ioprio = get_current_ioprio();
> diff --git a/include/linux/blk-mq.h b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
> index 1ab3081c82ed..e7fa81170b7c 100644
> --- a/include/linux/blk-mq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
> @@ -1149,6 +1149,18 @@ static inline unsigned int blk_rq_zone_no(struct request *rq)
>   	return disk_zone_no(rq->q->disk, blk_rq_pos(rq));
>   }
> 
> +/**
> + * blk_bio_is_seq_zoned_write() - Check if @bio requires write serialization.
> + * @bio: Bio to examine.
> + *
> + * Note: REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND bios do not require serialization.
> + */
> +static inline bool blk_bio_is_seq_zoned_write(struct bio *bio)
> +{
> +	return disk_zone_is_seq(bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector) &&
> +		op_needs_zoned_write_locking(bio_op(bio));
> +}
> +
>   static inline unsigned int blk_rq_zone_is_seq(struct request *rq)
>   {
>   	return disk_zone_is_seq(rq->q->disk, blk_rq_pos(rq));
> @@ -1196,6 +1208,11 @@ static inline bool blk_req_can_dispatch_to_zone(struct request *rq)
>   	return !blk_req_zone_is_write_locked(rq);
>   }
>   #else /* CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED */
> +static inline bool blk_bio_is_seq_zoned_write(struct bio *bio)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>   static inline bool blk_rq_is_seq_zoned_write(struct request *rq)
>   {
>   	return false;
> 

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research


  reply	other threads:[~2023-12-20  0:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-18 21:13 [PATCH v2 0/4] Improve I/O priority support in mq-deadline for zoned writes Bart Van Assche
2023-12-18 21:13 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] block/mq-deadline: Rename dd_rq_ioclass() and change its return type Bart Van Assche
2023-12-18 21:13 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] block/mq-deadline: Introduce dd_bio_ioclass() Bart Van Assche
2023-12-18 21:13 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] block/mq-deadline: Introduce deadline_first_rq_past_pos() Bart Van Assche
2023-12-18 21:13 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] block/mq-deadline: Prevent zoned write reordering due to I/O prioritization Bart Van Assche
2023-12-19 12:10   ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-12-19 17:42     ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-20  0:05       ` Damien Le Moal [this message]
2023-12-20  0:48         ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-20  1:28           ` Damien Le Moal
2023-12-20  3:53             ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-12-20  4:40               ` Damien Le Moal

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=6d2e8aaa-3e0e-4f8e-8295-0f74b65f23ae@kernel.org \
    --to=dlemoal@kernel.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@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