From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: dlemoal@kernel.org, hare@suse.de, jack@suse.cz, tj@kernel.org,
josef@toxicpanda.com, axboe@kernel.dk, yukuai3@huawei.com,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
yangerkun@huawei.com, johnny.chenyi@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] blk-mq-sched: support request batch dispatching for sq elevator
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:18:06 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aIsmvj_lxLA6ZaWe@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250730082207.4031744-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 04:22:02PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>
> Changes from v1:
> - the ioc changes are send separately;
> - change the patch 1-3 order as suggested by Damien;
>
> Currently, both mq-deadline and bfq have global spin lock that will be
> grabbed inside elevator methods like dispatch_request, insert_requests,
> and bio_merge. And the global lock is the main reason mq-deadline and
> bfq can't scale very well.
>
> For dispatch_request method, current behavior is dispatching one request at
> a time. In the case of multiple dispatching contexts, This behavior, on the
> one hand, introduce intense lock contention:
>
> t1: t2: t3:
> lock lock lock
> // grab lock
> ops.dispatch_request
> unlock
> // grab lock
> ops.dispatch_request
> unlock
> // grab lock
> ops.dispatch_request
> unlock
>
> on the other hand, messing up the requests dispatching order:
> t1:
>
> lock
> rq1 = ops.dispatch_request
> unlock
> t2:
> lock
> rq2 = ops.dispatch_request
> unlock
>
> lock
> rq3 = ops.dispatch_request
> unlock
>
> lock
> rq4 = ops.dispatch_request
> unlock
>
> //rq1,rq3 issue to disk
> // rq2, rq4 issue to disk
>
> In this case, the elevator dispatch order is rq 1-2-3-4, however,
> such order in disk is rq 1-3-2-4, the order for rq2 and rq3 is inversed.
>
> While dispatching request, blk_mq_get_disatpch_budget() and
> blk_mq_get_driver_tag() must be called, and they are not ready to be
> called inside elevator methods, hence introduce a new method like
> dispatch_requests is not possible.
>
> In conclusion, this set factor the global lock out of dispatch_request
> method, and support request batch dispatch by calling the methods
> multiple time while holding the lock.
>
> nullblk setup:
> modprobe null_blk nr_devices=0 &&
> udevadm settle &&
> cd /sys/kernel/config/nullb &&
> mkdir nullb0 &&
> cd nullb0 &&
> echo 0 > completion_nsec &&
> echo 512 > blocksize &&
> echo 0 > home_node &&
> echo 0 > irqmode &&
> echo 128 > submit_queues &&
> echo 1024 > hw_queue_depth &&
> echo 1024 > size &&
> echo 0 > memory_backed &&
> echo 2 > queue_mode &&
> echo 1 > power ||
> exit $?
>
> Test script:
> fio -filename=/dev/$disk -name=test -rw=randwrite -bs=4k -iodepth=32 \
> -numjobs=16 --iodepth_batch_submit=8 --iodepth_batch_complete=8 \
> -direct=1 -ioengine=io_uring -group_reporting -time_based -runtime=30
>
> Test result: iops
>
> | | deadline | bfq |
> | --------------- | -------- | -------- |
> | before this set | 263k | 124k |
> | after this set | 475k | 292k |
batch dispatch may hurt io merge performance which is important for
elevator, so please provide test data on real HDD. & SSD., instead of
null_blk only, and it can be perfect if merge sensitive workload
is evaluated.
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-31 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-30 8:22 [PATCH v2 0/5] blk-mq-sched: support request batch dispatching for sq elevator Yu Kuai
2025-07-30 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] blk-mq-sched: introduce high level elevator lock Yu Kuai
2025-07-30 17:19 ` Bart Van Assche
2025-07-30 17:59 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-31 6:17 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-30 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mq-deadline: switch to use " Yu Kuai
2025-07-30 17:21 ` Bart Van Assche
2025-07-30 18:01 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-30 18:10 ` Bart Van Assche
2025-07-31 6:20 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-31 6:22 ` Damien Le Moal
2025-07-31 6:32 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-31 7:04 ` Damien Le Moal
2025-07-31 7:14 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-30 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] block, bfq: " Yu Kuai
2025-07-30 17:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2025-07-31 6:22 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-30 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] blk-mq-sched: refactor __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() Yu Kuai
2025-07-30 18:32 ` Bart Van Assche
2025-07-31 0:49 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-30 8:22 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] blk-mq-sched: support request batch dispatching for sq elevator Yu Kuai
2025-07-31 8:18 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2025-07-31 8:42 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] " Yu Kuai
2025-07-31 9:25 ` Ming Lei
2025-07-31 9:33 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-31 10:22 ` Ming Lei
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=aIsmvj_lxLA6ZaWe@fedora \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=johnny.chenyi@huawei.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai1@huaweicloud.com \
--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