From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible bio merging breakage in mp bio rework
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 09:09:12 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9ac6f2eb-069a-a02c-7863-e33cb00ad312@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190406001653.GA4805@ming.t460p>
On 6.04.19 г. 3:16 ч., Ming Lei wrote:
> Hi Nikolay,
>
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2019 at 07:04:18PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Hello Ming,
>>
>> Following the mp biovec rework what is the maximum
>> data that a bio could contain? Should it be PAGE_SIZE * bio_vec
>
> There isn't any maximum data limit on the bio submitted from fs,
> and block layer will make the final bio sent to driver correct
> by applying all kinds of queue limit, such as max segment size,
> max segment number, max sectors, ...
>
>> or something else? Currently I can see bios as large as 127 megs
>> on sequential workloads, I got prompted to this since btrfs has a
>> memory allocation that is dependent on the data in the bio and this
>> particular memory allocation started failing with order 6 allocs.
>
> Could you share us the code? I don't see why order 6 allocs is a must.
When a bio is submitted btrfs has to calculate the checksum for it, this
happens in btrfs_csum_one_bio. Said checksums are stored in an
kmalloc'ed array, whose size is calculated as:
32 + bio_size / btrfs' block size (usually 4k). So for a 127mb bio that
would be: 32 * ((134184960÷4096) * 4) = 127k. We'd make an order 3
allocation. Admittedly the code in btrfs should know better rather than
make unbounded allocations without a fallback, but bio suddenly becoming
rather unbounded in their size caught us offhand.
>
>> Further debugging showed that with the following xfs_io command line:
>>
>>
>> xfs_io -f -c "pwrite -S 0x61 -b 4m 0 10g" /media/scratch/file1
>>
>> I can easily see very large bios:
>>
>> [ 188.366540] kworker/-7 3.... 34847519us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe9940bb0 bi_iter.bi_size = 134184960 bi_vcn: 28 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>> [ 188.367129] kworker/-658 2.... 34946536us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe9940370 bi_iter.bi_size = 134246400 bi_vcn: 28 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>> [ 188.367714] kworker/-7 3.... 35107967us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe9940bb0 bi_iter.bi_size = 134184960 bi_vcn: 30 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>> [ 188.368319] kworker/-658 2.... 35229894us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe9940370 bi_iter.bi_size = 134246400 bi_vcn: 32 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>> [ 188.368909] kworker/-7 3.... 35374809us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe9940bb0 bi_iter.bi_size = 134184960 bi_vcn: 25 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>> [ 188.369498] kworker/-658 2.... 35516194us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe9940370 bi_iter.bi_size = 134246400 bi_vcn: 31 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>> [ 188.370086] kworker/-7 3.... 35663669us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe9940bb0 bi_iter.bi_size = 134184960 bi_vcn: 32 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>> [ 188.370696] kworker/-658 2.... 35791006us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe9940370 bi_iter.bi_size = 100655104 bi_vcn: 24 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>> [ 188.371335] kworker/-658 2.... 35816114us : btrfs_submit_bio_hook: bio: ffff8dffe99434f0 bi_iter.bi_size = 33591296 bi_vcn: 5 bi_vcnt_max: 256
>>
>>
>> So that's 127 megs in a single bio? This stems from the new merging logic.
>> 07173c3ec276 ("block: enable multipage bvecs") made it so that physically
>> contiguous pages added to the bio would just modify bi_iter.bi_size and the
>> initial page's bio_vec's bv_len. There's no longer the
>> page == bv->bv_page portion of the check.
>
> bio_add_page() tries best to put physically contiguous pages into one bvec, and
> I don't see anything is wrong in the log.
>
> Could you show us what the real problem is?
>
> Thanks,
> Ming
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-06 6:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-05 16:04 Possible bio merging breakage in mp bio rework Nikolay Borisov
2019-04-06 0:16 ` Ming Lei
2019-04-06 6:09 ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2019-04-06 8:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-04-06 12:30 ` Ming Lei
2019-04-08 9:52 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2019-04-08 10:19 ` Ming Lei
2019-04-08 10:22 ` Johannes Thumshirn
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=9ac6f2eb-069a-a02c-7863-e33cb00ad312@suse.com \
--to=nborisov@suse.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=osandov@osandov.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).