Re: [ata] 0568e61225: stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per_sec -15.0% regression

John Garry
2022-08-16T20:44:59Z

On 16/08/2022 21:02, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> ou confirm this? Thanks!
>>
>> On this basis, it appears that max_hw_sectors_kb is getting capped from
>> scsi default @ 1024 sectors by commit 0568e61225. If it were getting
>> capped by swiotlb mapping limit then that would give us 512 sectors -
>> this value is fixed.
>>
>> So for my SHT change proposal I am just trying to revert to previous
>> behaviour in 5.19 - make max_hw_sectors_kb crazy big again.
> I reread the entire thing and I think I got things reverted here. The perf
> regression happens with the 512/512 settings, while the original 1280/32767
> before your patches was OK.

Right, that's as I read it. It would be useful for Oliver to confirm the
results.

> So is your patch defining the optimal mapping size
> cause the reduction to 512/512.

The optimal mapping size only affects specifically sas controllers, so I
think that we can ignore that one for now. The reduction to 512/512
comes from the change in ata_scsi_dev_config().

> It would mean that for ATA, we need a sane
> default mapping instead of SCSI default 1024 sectors.

Right

> Now I understand your
> proposed change using ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48.
>
> However, that would be correct only for LBA48 capable drives.
> ata_dev_configure() already sets dev->max_sectors correctly according to the
> drive type, capabilities and eventual quirks. So the problem comes from the
> libata-scsi change:
>
> dev->max_sectors = min(dev->max_sectors, sdev->host->max_sectors);
>
> when sdev->host->max_sectors is 0 (not initialized).

That cannot happen. If sht->max_sectors is 0, then we set
shost->max_sectors at SCSI default 1024 sectors in scsi_host_alloc()

For my proposed change, dev->max_sectors would still be initialized in
ata_dev_configure() according to drive type, etc. And it should be <=
LBA48 max sectors (=65535).

So then in ata_scsi_dev_config():

dev->max_sectors = min(dev->max_sectors, sdev->host->max_sectors)

this only has an impact for ahci controllers if sdev->host->max_sectors
was capped according to host dma dev max mapping size.

I will admit that this is not ideal. An alt approach is to change
ata_scsi_dev_config() to cap the dev max_sectors only according to shost
dma dev mapping limit (similar to scsi_add_host_with_dma()), but that
would not work for a controller like ipr, which does have a geniune
max_sectors limit (which we should respect).

Thanks,
John

> So maybe simply changing
> this line to:
>
> dev->max_sectors = min_not_zero(dev->max_sectors, sdev->host->max_sectors);
>
> would do the trick ? Any particular adapter driver that needs a mapping cap on
> the adpter max mapping size can still set sdev->host->max_sectors as needed, and
> we keep the same defaults as before when it is not set. Thoughts ? Or am I
> missing something else ?
>
>
>>> The regression may come not from commands becoming tiny, but from the fact that
>>> after the patch, max_sectors_kb is too large,
>> I don't think it is, but need confirmation.
>>
>>> causing a lot of overhead with
>>> qemu swiotlb mapping and slowing down IO processing.
>>> Above, it can be seen that we ed up with max_sectors_kb being 1280, which is the
>>> default for most scsi disks (including ATA drives). That is normal. But before
>>> that, it was 512, which likely better fits qemu swiotlb and does not generate
>> Again, I don't think this this is the case. Need confirmation.
>>
>>> overhead. So the above fix will not change anything I think...