From: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER: not working in 2.6.24 ?
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:06:22 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <476190BE.9010405@rtr.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071213200219.GI10104@kernel.dk>
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13 2007, Mark Lord wrote:
>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 13 2007, Mark Lord wrote:
>>>>> Mark Lord wrote:
>>>>>> Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13 2007, Mark Lord wrote:
>>>>>>>> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 01:48:18PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Problem confirmed. 2.6.23.8 regularly generates segments up to
>>>>>>>>>> 64KB for libata,
>>>>>>>>>> but 2.6.24 uses only 4KB segments and a *few* 8KB segments.
>>>>>>>>> Just a suspicion ... could this be slab vs slub? ie check your
>>>>>>>>> configs
>>>>>>>>> are the same / similar between the two kernels.
>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mmmm.. a good thought, that one.
>>>>>>>> But I just rechecked, and both have CONFIG_SLAB=y
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My guess is that something got changed around when Jens
>>>>>>>> reworked the block layer for 2.6.24.
>>>>>>>> I'm going to dig around in there now.
>>>>>>> I didn't rework the block layer for 2.6.24 :-). The core block layer
>>>>>>> changes since 2.6.23 are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Support for empty barriers. Not a likely candidate.
>>>>>>> - Shared tag queue fixes. Totally unlikely.
>>>>>>> - sg chaining support. Not likely.
>>>>>>> - The bio changes from Neil. Of the bunch, the most likely suspects in
>>>>>>> this area, since it changes some of the code involved with merges and
>>>>>>> blk_rq_map_sg().
>>>>>>> - Lots of simple stuff, again very unlikely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, it sounds odd for this to be a block layer problem if you do see
>>>>>>> occasional segments being merged. So it sounds more like the input data
>>>>>>> having changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just bisect it?
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the early 2.6.24 series failed to boot on this machine
>>>>>> due to bugs in the block layer -- so the code that caused this regression
>>>>>> is probably in the stuff from before the kernels became usable here.
>>>>> ..
>>>>>
>>>>> That sounds more harsh than intended --> the earlier 2.6.24 kernels (up to
>>>>> the first couple of -rc* ones failed here because of incompatibilities
>>>>> between the block/bio changes and libata.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's better, I think!
>>>> No worries, I didn't pick it up as harsh just as an odd conclusion :-)
>>>>
>>>> If I were you, I'd just start from the first -rc that booted for you. If
>>>> THAT has the bug, then we'll think of something else. If you don't get
>>>> anywhere, I can run some tests tomorrow and see if I can reproduce it
>>>> here.
>>> ..
>>>
>>> I believe that *anyone* can reproduce it, since it's broken long before
>>> the requests ever get to SCSI or libata. Which also means that *anyone*
>>> who wants to can bisect it, as well.
>>>
>>> I don't do "bisects".
>> It was just a suggestion on how to narrow it down, do as you see fit.
>>
>>> But I will dig a bit more and see if I can find the culprit.
>> Sure, I'll dig around as well.
>
> Just tried something simple. I only see one 12kb segment so far, so not
> a lot by any stretch. I also DONT see any missed merges signs, so it
> would appear that the pages in the request are simply not contigious
> physically.
>
> diff --git a/block/ll_rw_blk.c b/block/ll_rw_blk.c
> index e30b1a4..1e34b6f 100644
> --- a/block/ll_rw_blk.c
> +++ b/block/ll_rw_blk.c
> @@ -1330,6 +1330,8 @@ int blk_rq_map_sg(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq,
> goto new_segment;
>
> sg->length += nbytes;
> + if (sg->length > 8192)
> + printk("sg_len=%d\n", sg->length);
> } else {
> new_segment:
> if (!sg)
> @@ -1349,6 +1351,8 @@ new_segment:
> sg = sg_next(sg);
> }
>
> + if (bvprv && (page_address(bvprv->bv_page) + bvprv->bv_len == page_address(bvec->bv_page)))
> + printk("missed merge\n");
> sg_set_page(sg, bvec->bv_page, nbytes, bvec->bv_offset);
> nsegs++;
> }
>
..
Yeah, the first part is similar to my own hack.
For testing, try "dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=4096k".
That *really* should end up using contiguous pages on most systems.
I figured out the git thing, and am now building some in-between kernels to try.
Cheers
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-13 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-12-13 18:36 QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER: not working in 2.6.24 ? Mark Lord
2007-12-13 18:37 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 18:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-12-13 18:46 ` James Bottomley
2007-12-13 18:48 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 18:53 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-12-13 19:03 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 19:26 ` Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 19:30 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 19:32 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 19:39 ` Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 19:42 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 19:53 ` Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 19:59 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 20:05 ` Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 20:02 ` Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 20:06 ` Mark Lord [this message]
2007-12-13 20:09 ` Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 20:14 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 20:18 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 20:21 ` Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 22:02 ` Andrew Morton
2007-12-13 22:15 ` James Bottomley
2007-12-13 22:29 ` Andrew Morton
2007-12-13 22:33 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-13 23:13 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-14 0:05 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-14 0:30 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-14 0:37 ` Andrew Morton
2007-12-14 0:42 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-14 0:46 ` [PATCH] fix page_alloc for larger I/O segments (improved) Mark Lord
2007-12-14 0:57 ` James Bottomley
2007-12-14 1:11 ` Andrew Morton
2007-12-14 2:23 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-14 17:42 ` Mel Gorman
2007-12-14 18:07 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-16 21:56 ` Mel Gorman
2007-12-14 18:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-12-14 18:30 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-20 22:37 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-12-14 0:47 ` QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER: not working in 2.6.24 ? Mark Lord
2007-12-14 11:50 ` Mel Gorman
2007-12-14 13:57 ` Mark Lord
2007-12-14 0:40 ` [PATCH] fix page_alloc for larger I/O segments Mark Lord
2007-12-14 1:03 ` Andrew Morton
2007-12-14 4:00 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-12-13 22:17 ` QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER: not working in 2.6.24 ? Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 22:02 ` VM allocates pages in reverse order again Matthew Wilcox
2007-12-13 19:37 ` QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER: not working in 2.6.24 ? Jens Axboe
2007-12-13 19:53 ` Mark Lord
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=476190BE.9010405@rtr.ca \
--to=liml@rtr.ca \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@rtr.ca \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
/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).