From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: colyli@kernel.org
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] md: split bio by io_opt size in md_submit_bio()
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 01:01:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aKLd4bj6QSzzXqSh@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250817152645.7115-2-colyli@kernel.org>
On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 11:26:45PM +0800, colyli@kernel.org wrote:
> This patch introduces bio_split_by_io_opt() to solve the above issue,
> 1, If the incoming bio is not limits.io_opt aligned, split the non-
> aligned head part. Then the next one will be aligned.
> 2, If the imcoming bio is limits.io_opt aligned, and split is necessary,
> then try to split a by multiple of limits.io_opt but not exceed
> limits.max_hw_sectors.
>
> Then for large bio, the sligned split part will be full-stripes covered
> to all data disks, no extra read-in I/Os when rmw_level is 0. And for
> rmw_level > 0 condistions, the limits.io_opt aligned bios are welcomed
> for performace as well.
>
> This patch only tests on 8 disks raid5 array with 64KiB chunk size.
> By this patch, 64KiB chunk size for a 8 disks raid5 array, sequential
> write performance increases from 900MiB/s to 1.1GiB/s by fio bs=10M.
> If fio bs=488K (exact limits.io_opt size) the peak sequential write
> throughput can reach 1.51GiB/s.
All this code duplication seems like a bad idea. What is the problem
with setting max_hw_sectors to a stripe size aligned value and then
letting bio_split_by_io_opt do the work?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-18 8:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-08-17 15:26 [PATCH 1/2] block: ignore underlying non-stack devices io_opt colyli
2025-08-17 15:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] md: split bio by io_opt size in md_submit_bio() colyli
2025-08-18 1:38 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 8:01 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-08-18 9:51 ` John Garry
[not found] ` <6DA25F37-26B3-4912-90A3-346CFD9A6EEA@coly.li>
2025-08-18 12:20 ` John Garry
2025-08-17 18:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: ignore underlying non-stack devices io_opt Paul Menzel
2025-08-18 1:14 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 2:51 ` Damien Le Moal
2025-08-18 2:57 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 3:18 ` Damien Le Moal
2025-08-18 3:40 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 5:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 6:14 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 6:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 6:31 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 8:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 8:10 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 8:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-08-18 8:57 ` Yu Kuai
2025-08-18 9:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=aKLd4bj6QSzzXqSh@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=colyli@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).