From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Do not pull requests from the scheduler when we cannot dispatch them
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 09:29:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YKcM/TWxSAQv7KHg@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210520112528.16250-1-jack@suse.cz>
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:25:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Provided the device driver does not implement dispatch budget accounting
> (which only SCSI does) the loop in __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() pulls
> requests from the IO scheduler as long as it is willing to give out any.
> That defeats scheduling heuristics inside the scheduler by creating
> false impression that the device can take more IO when it in fact
> cannot.
So hctx->dispatch_busy isn't set as true in this case?
>
> For example with BFQ IO scheduler on top of virtio-blk device setting
> blkio cgroup weight has barely any impact on observed throughput of
> async IO because __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() always sucks out all the
> IO queued in BFQ. BFQ first submits IO from higher weight cgroups but
> when that is all dispatched, it will give out IO of lower weight cgroups
> as well. And then we have to wait for all this IO to be dispatched to
> the disk (which means lot of it actually has to complete) before the
> IO scheduler is queried again for dispatching more requests. This
> completely destroys any service differentiation.
>
> So grab request tag for a request pulled out of the IO scheduler already
> in __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() and do not pull any more requests if we
> cannot get it because we are unlikely to be able to dispatch it. That
> way only single request is going to wait in the dispatch list for some
> tag to free.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> ---
> block/blk-mq-sched.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> block/blk-mq.c | 2 +-
> block/blk-mq.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> index 996a4b2f73aa..714e678f516a 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> @@ -168,9 +168,19 @@ static int __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> * in blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list().
> */
> list_add_tail(&rq->queuelist, &rq_list);
> + count++;
> if (rq->mq_hctx != hctx)
> multi_hctxs = true;
> - } while (++count < max_dispatch);
> +
> + /*
> + * If we cannot get tag for the request, stop dequeueing
> + * requests from the IO scheduler. We are unlikely to be able
> + * to submit them anyway and it creates false impression for
> + * scheduling heuristics that the device can take more IO.
> + */
> + if (!blk_mq_get_driver_tag(rq))
> + break;
At default BFQ's queue depth is same with virtblk_queue_depth, both are
256, so looks you use non-default setting?
Also in case of running out of driver tag, hctx->dispatch_busy should have
been set as true for avoiding batching dequeuing, does the following
patch make a difference for you?
diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
index 045b6878b8c5..c2ce3091ad6e 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
@@ -107,6 +107,13 @@ static bool blk_mq_dispatch_hctx_list(struct list_head *rq_list)
#define BLK_MQ_BUDGET_DELAY 3 /* ms units */
+static int blk_mq_sched_max_disaptch(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
+{
+ if (!hctx->dispatch_busy)
+ return hctx->queue->nr_requests;
+ return 1;
+}
+
/*
* Only SCSI implements .get_budget and .put_budget, and SCSI restarts
* its queue by itself in its completion handler, so we don't need to
@@ -121,15 +128,9 @@ static int __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
struct elevator_queue *e = q->elevator;
bool multi_hctxs = false, run_queue = false;
bool dispatched = false, busy = false;
- unsigned int max_dispatch;
LIST_HEAD(rq_list);
int count = 0;
- if (hctx->dispatch_busy)
- max_dispatch = 1;
- else
- max_dispatch = hctx->queue->nr_requests;
-
do {
struct request *rq;
int budget_token;
@@ -170,7 +171,7 @@ static int __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
list_add_tail(&rq->queuelist, &rq_list);
if (rq->mq_hctx != hctx)
multi_hctxs = true;
- } while (++count < max_dispatch);
+ } while (++count < blk_mq_sched_max_disaptch(hctx));
if (!count) {
if (run_queue)
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-21 1:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-20 11:25 [PATCH] block: Do not pull requests from the scheduler when we cannot dispatch them Jan Kara
2021-05-21 1:29 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2021-05-21 11:20 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-21 11:27 ` Jan Kara
2021-05-21 13:18 ` Ming Lei
2021-06-02 9:25 ` Ming Lei
2021-06-03 10:45 ` Jan Kara
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=YKcM/TWxSAQv7KHg@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paolo.valente@linaro.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