From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Mike Anderson <andmike@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alasdair Graeme Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optimize lock in queue unplugging
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:05:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080429200513.GG12774@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804291554490.26643@engineering.redhat.com>
On Tue, Apr 29 2008, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Apr 29 2008, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>Mike Anderson was doing an OLTP benchmark on a computer with 48 physical
> >>disks mapped to one logical device via device mapper.
> >>
> >>He found that there was a slowdown on request_queue->lock in function
> >>generic_unplug_device. The slowdown is caused by the fact that when some
> >>code calls unplug on the device mapper, device mapper calls unplug on all
> >>physical disks. These unplug calls take the lock, find that the queue is
> >>already unplugged, release the lock and exit.
> >>
> >>With the below patch, performance of the benchmark was increased by 18%
> >>(the whole OLTP application, not just block layer microbenchmarks).
> >>
> >>So I'm submitting this patch for upstream. I think the patch is correct,
> >>because when more threads call simultaneously plug and unplug, it is
> >>unspecified, if the queue is or isn't plugged (so the patch can't make
> >>this worse). And the caller that plugged the queue should unplug it
> >>anyway. (if it doesn't, there's 3ms timeout).
> >
> >Where were these unplug calls coming from? The block layer will
> >generally only unplug when it is already unplugged, so if you are seeing
> >so many unplug calls that the patch redues overhead by as much
> >described, perhaps the callsite is buggy?
> >
> >--
> >Jens Axboe
>
> unplug is called on any wait_on_buffer (and similar calls)
> __wait_on_buffer -> sync_buffer -> blk_run_address_space ->
> blk_run_backing_dev -> bdi->unplug_io_fn(bdi, page);
>
> (I'm not sure that this was the IBM's case, I'm just guessing - this is
> the most obvious example where unplug is called repeatedly)
>
>
> There is not any test that the queue is plugged and there shouldn't be. If
> you have this situation
>
> dm-linear(unplugged) -> physical-disk(plugged)
>
> then uplung should be called on dm-linear (that will call dm-unplug method
> dm_unplug_all and that will unplug the disk). If you add the test of
> plugged queue to the upper layer, you mess this situation with stacked
> drivers completely.
>
> The test for already plugged queue should be at the lowest physical device
> driver, not in upper layers.
Fair enough, I'll put the patch under closer scrutiny and queue it up.
Thanks!
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-29 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-29 19:12 [PATCH] Optimize lock in queue unplugging Mikulas Patocka
2008-04-29 19:25 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-29 20:02 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-04-29 20:05 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-04-29 20:29 ` Mike Anderson
2008-04-30 7:14 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-30 10:38 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2008-04-30 13:54 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-05-04 19:11 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-05 4:01 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-05-07 7:45 ` Jens Axboe
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=20080429200513.GG12774@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=andmike@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.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