From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: colyli@kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] md: split bio by io_opt size in md_submit_bio()
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 10:51:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8b627eed-331c-4ce5-b095-e682bbf8ebe7@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250817152645.7115-2-colyli@kernel.org>
On 17/08/2025 16:26, colyli@kernel.org wrote:
> From: Coly Li <colyli@kernel.org>
>
> Currently in md_submit_bio() the incoming request bio is split by
> bio_split_to_limits() which makes sure the bio won't exceed
> max_hw_sectors of a specific raid level before senting into its
> .make_request method.
>
> For raid level 4/5/6 such split method might be problematic and hurt
> large read/write perforamnce. Because limits.max_hw_sectors are not
> always aligned to limits.io_opt size, the split bio won't be full
> stripes covered on all data disks, and will introduce extra read-in I/O.
> Even the bio's bi_sector is aligned to limits.io_opt size and large
> enough, the resulted split bio is not size-friendly to corresponding
> raid456 level.
>
> This patch introduces bio_split_by_io_opt() to solve the above issue,
> 1, If the incoming bio is not limits.io_opt aligned, split the non-
> aligned head part. Then the next one will be aligned.
> 2, If the imcoming bio is limits.io_opt aligned, and split is necessary,
> then try to split a by multiple of limits.io_opt but not exceed
> limits.max_hw_sectors.
>
this sounds like chunk_sectors functionality, apart from "split a by
multiple of limits.io_opt"
> Then for large bio, the sligned split part will be full-stripes covered
> to all data disks, no extra read-in I/Os when rmw_level is 0. And for
> rmw_level > 0 condistions, the limits.io_opt aligned bios are welcomed
> for performace as well.
>
> This patch only tests on 8 disks raid5 array with 64KiB chunk size.
> By this patch, 64KiB chunk size for a 8 disks raid5 array, sequential
> write performance increases from 900MiB/s to 1.1GiB/s by fio bs=10M.
> If fio bs=488K (exact limits.io_opt size) the peak sequential write
> throughput can reach 1.51GiB/s.
>
> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/md/md.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> drivers/md/raid5.c | 6 +++++-
> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
> index ac85ec73a409..d0d4d05150fe 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
> @@ -426,6 +426,55 @@ bool md_handle_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(md_handle_request);
>
> +/**
> + * For raid456 read/write request, if bio LBA isn't aligned tot io_opt,
> + * split the non io_opt aligned header, to make the second part's LBA be
> + * aligned to io_opt. Otherwise still call bio_split_to_limits() to
> + * handle bio split with queue limits.
> + */
> +static struct bio *bio_split_by_io_opt(struct bio *bio)
> +{
> + sector_t io_opt_sectors, start, offset;
> + struct queue_limits lim;
> + struct mddev *mddev;
> + struct bio *split;
> + int level;
> +
> + mddev = bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> + level = mddev->level;
> +
> + /* Only handle read456 read/write requests */
> + if (level == 1 || level == 10 || level == 0 || level == LEVEL_LINEAR ||
> + (bio_op(bio) != REQ_OP_READ && bio_op(bio) != REQ_OP_WRITE))
> + return bio_split_to_limits(bio);
this should be taken outside this function, as we are not splitting to
io_opt here
> +
> + /* In case raid456 chunk size is too large */
> + lim = mddev->gendisk->queue->limits;
> + io_opt_sectors = lim.io_opt >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> + if (unlikely(io_opt_sectors > lim.max_hw_sectors))
> + return bio_split_to_limits(bio);
> +
> + /* Small request, no need to split */
> + if (bio_sectors(bio) <= io_opt_sectors)
> + return bio;
According to 1, above, we should split this if bio->bi_iter.bi_sector is
not aligned, yet we possibly don't here
> +
> + /* Only split the non-io-opt aligned header part */
> + start = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
> + offset = sector_div(start, io_opt_sectors);
> + if (offset == 0)
> + return bio_split_to_limits(bio);
this does not seem to match the description in 2, above, where we have
"and split is necessary".
> +
> + split = bio_split(bio, (io_opt_sectors - offset), GFP_NOIO,
> + &bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk->bio_split);
> + if (!split)
that check is incorrect. It should be IS_ERR(). So I doubt the
functionality earlier for handling "and split is necessary".
> + return bio_split_to_limits(bio);
> +
> + split->bi_opf |= REQ_NOMERGE;
> + bio_chain(split, bio);
> + submit_bio_noacct(bio);
> + return split;
> +}
> +
> static void md_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
> {
> const int rw = bio_data_dir(bio);
> @@ -441,7 +490,7 @@ static void md_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
> return;
> }
>
> - bio = bio_split_to_limits(bio);
> + bio = bio_split_by_io_opt(bio);
> if (!bio)
> return;
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index 989acd8abd98..985fabeeead5 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -7759,9 +7759,13 @@ static int raid5_set_limits(struct mddev *mddev)
>
> /*
> * Requests require having a bitmap for each stripe.
> - * Limit the max sectors based on this.
> + * Limit the max sectors based on this. And being
> + * aligned to lim.io_opt for better I/O performance.
> */
> lim.max_hw_sectors = RAID5_MAX_REQ_STRIPES << RAID5_STRIPE_SHIFT(conf);
> + if (lim.max_hw_sectors > lim.io_opt >> SECTOR_SHIFT)
> + lim.max_hw_sectors = rounddown(lim.max_hw_sectors,
> + lim.io_opt >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
>
> /* No restrictions on the number of segments in the request */
> lim.max_segments = USHRT_MAX;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-18 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-17 15:26 [PATCH 1/2] block: ignore underlying non-stack devices io_opt colyli
2025-08-17 15:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] md: split bio by io_opt size in md_submit_bio() colyli
2025-08-18 1:38 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 8:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 9:51 ` John Garry [this message]
[not found] ` <6DA25F37-26B3-4912-90A3-346CFD9A6EEA@coly.li>
2025-08-18 12:20 ` John Garry
2025-08-18 15:36 ` Coly Li
2025-08-17 18:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: ignore underlying non-stack devices io_opt Paul Menzel
2025-08-18 1:14 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 2:51 ` Damien Le Moal
2025-08-18 2:57 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 3:18 ` Damien Le Moal
2025-08-18 3:40 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 5:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 6:14 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 6:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 6:31 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 8:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 8:10 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 8:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 8:57 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 9:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=8b627eed-331c-4ce5-b095-e682bbf8ebe7@oracle.com \
--to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=colyli@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox