From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"Ewan D . Milne" <emilne@redhat.com>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
Laurence Oberman <loberman@redhat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>,
Sathya Prakash Veerichetty <sathya.prakash@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 2/2] scsi: core: don't limit per-LUN queue depth for SSD
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:09:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191024010911.GC15426@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1c40066e1f3361f2b6c8f90b4115ad01@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 01:16:48PM +0530, Kashyap Desai wrote:
> V4 2/2] scsi: core: don't limit per-LUN queue depth
> > for SSD
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:00:07AM +0530, Kashyap Desai wrote:
> > > > On 10/9/19 2:32 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > > @@ -354,7 +354,8 @@ void scsi_device_unbusy(struct scsi_device
> > > > > *sdev,
> > > > struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> > > > > if (starget->can_queue > 0)
> > > > > atomic_dec(&starget->target_busy);
> > > > >
> > > > > - atomic_dec(&sdev->device_busy);
> > > > > + if (!blk_queue_nonrot(sdev->request_queue))
> > > > > + atomic_dec(&sdev->device_busy);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ming,
> > > >
> > > > Does this patch impact the meaning of the queue_depth sysfs
> > > > attribute (see also sdev_store_queue_depth()) and also the queue
> > > > depth ramp up/down mechanism (see also
> > scsi_handle_queue_ramp_up())?
> > > > Have you considered to enable/disable busy tracking per LUN
> > > > depending on whether or not sdev-
> > > > >queue_depth < shost->can_queue?
> > > >
> > > > The megaraid and mpt3sas drivers read sdev->device_busy directly. Is
> > > > the current version of this patch compatible with these drivers?
> > >
> > > We need to know per scsi device outstanding in mpt3sas and
> > > megaraid_sas driver.
> >
> > Is the READ done in fast path or slow path? If it is on slow path, it
> should be
> > easy to do via blk_mq_in_flight_rw().
>
> READ is done in fast path.
>
> >
> > > Can we get supporting API from block layer (through SML) ? something
> > > similar to "atomic_read(&hctx->nr_active)" which can be derived from
> > > sdev->request_queue->hctx ?
> > > At least for those driver which is nr_hw_queue = 1, it will be useful
> > > and we can avoid sdev->device_busy dependency.
> >
> > If you mean to add new atomic counter, we just move the .device_busy
> into
> > blk-mq, that can become new bottleneck.
>
> How about below ? We define and use below API instead of
> "atomic_read(&scp->device->device_busy) >" and it is giving expected
> value. I have not captured performance impact on max IOPs profile.
>
> Inline unsigned long sdev_nr_inflight_request(struct request_queue *q)
> {
> struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
> unsigned long nr_requests = 0;
> int i;
>
> queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i)
> nr_requests += atomic_read(&hctx->nr_active);
>
> return nr_requests;
> }
There is still difference between above and .device_busy in case of
none, because .nr_active is accounted actually when allocating the request
instead of getting driver tag(or before calling .queue_rq).
Also the above only works in case that there are more than one active LUNs.
If you don't need it in case of single LUN AND don't care the difference
in case of none, the above API looks fine.
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-24 1:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-09 9:32 [PATCH V4 0/2] scsi: avoid atomic operations in IO path Ming Lei
2019-10-09 9:32 ` [PATCH V4 1/2] scsi: core: avoid host-wide host_busy counter for scsi_mq Ming Lei
2019-10-09 16:14 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-10-23 8:52 ` John Garry
2019-10-24 0:58 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-24 9:19 ` John Garry
2019-10-24 21:24 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-25 8:58 ` John Garry
2019-10-25 9:43 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-25 10:13 ` John Garry
2019-10-25 21:53 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-28 9:42 ` John Garry
2019-10-09 9:32 ` [RFC PATCH V4 2/2] scsi: core: don't limit per-LUN queue depth for SSD Ming Lei
2019-10-09 16:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-10-10 0:43 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-17 18:30 ` Kashyap Desai
2019-10-23 1:28 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-23 7:46 ` Kashyap Desai
2019-10-24 1:09 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2019-10-25 10:04 ` Kashyap Desai
2019-10-25 21:58 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-04 9:30 ` Kashyap Desai
2019-11-05 0:23 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-23 0:30 ` [scsi] cc2f854c79: suspend_stress.fail kernel test robot
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=20191024010911.GC15426@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=emilne@redhat.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kashyap.desai@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loberman@redhat.com \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=osandov@fb.com \
--cc=sathya.prakash@broadcom.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