public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: juncheng bai <baijuncheng@unitedstack.com>
To: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
Cc: idryomov@redhat.com, Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>,
	Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>,
	Guangliang Zhao <lucienchao@gmail.com>,
	jeff@garzik.org, yehuda@hq.newdream.net,
	Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>,
	elder@inktank.com,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ceph Development <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] storage:rbd: make the size of request is equal to the, size of the object
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 19:57:24 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55800F24.6060100@unitedstack.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOi1vP-2dqn_FmgCK-1O6M10FHGpEPVxkAKs6SMoUB_kU9X5TQ@mail.gmail.com>



On 2015/6/16 16:37, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:28 AM, juncheng bai
> <baijuncheng@unitedstack.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2015/6/15 22:27, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, juncheng bai
>>> <baijuncheng@unitedstack.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2015/6/15 21:03, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:18 PM, juncheng bai
>>>>> <baijuncheng@unitedstack.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    From 6213215bd19926d1063d4e01a248107dab8a899b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>>>>>> 2001
>>>>>> From: juncheng bai <baijuncheng@unitedstack.com>
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:34:00 +0800
>>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] storage:rbd: make the size of request is equal to the
>>>>>>     size of the object
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ensures that the merged size of request can achieve the size of
>>>>>> the object.
>>>>>> when merge a bio to request or merge a request to request, the
>>>>>> sum of the segment number of the current request and the segment
>>>>>> number of the bio is not greater than the max segments of the request,
>>>>>> so the max size of request is 512k if the max segments of request is
>>>>>> BLK_MAX_SEGMENTS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: juncheng bai <baijuncheng@unitedstack.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/block/rbd.c | 2 ++
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
>>>>>> index 0a54c58..dec6045 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
>>>>>> @@ -3757,6 +3757,8 @@ static int rbd_init_disk(struct rbd_device
>>>>>> *rbd_dev)
>>>>>>            segment_size = rbd_obj_bytes(&rbd_dev->header);
>>>>>>            blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, segment_size / SECTOR_SIZE);
>>>>>>            blk_queue_max_segment_size(q, segment_size);
>>>>>> +       if (segment_size > BLK_MAX_SEGMENTS * PAGE_SIZE)
>>>>>> +               blk_queue_max_segments(q, segment_size / PAGE_SIZE);
>>>>>>            blk_queue_io_min(q, segment_size);
>>>>>>            blk_queue_io_opt(q, segment_size);
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I made a similar patch on Friday, investigating blk-mq plugging issue
>>>>> reported by Nick.  My patch sets it to BIO_MAX_PAGES unconditionally -
>>>>> AFAIU there is no point in setting to anything bigger since the bios
>>>>> will be clipped to that number of vecs.  Given that BIO_MAX_PAGES is
>>>>> 256, this gives is 1M direct I/Os.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi. For signal bio, the max number of bio_vec is BIO_MAX_PAGES, but a
>>>> request can be merged from multiple bios. We can see the below function:
>>>> ll_back_merge_fn, ll_front_merge_fn and etc.
>>>> And I test in kernel 3.18 use this patch, and do:
>>>> echo 4096 > /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb
>>>> We use systemtap to trace the request size, It is upto 4M.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kernel 3.18 is pre rbd blk-mq transition, which happened in 4.0.  You
>>> should test whatever patches you have with at least 4.0.
>>>
>>> Putting that aside, I must be missing something.  You'll get 4M
>>> requests on 3.18 both with your patch and without it, the only
>>> difference would be the size of bios being merged - 512k vs 1M.  Can
>>> you describe your test workload and provide before and after traces?
>>>
>> Hi. I update kernel version to 4.0.5. The test information as shown below:
>> The base information:
>> 03:28:13-root@server-186:~$uname -r
>> 4.0.5
>>
>> My simple systemtap script:
>> probe module("rbd").function("rbd_img_request_create")
>> {
>>      printf("offset:%lu length:%lu\n", ulong_arg(2), ulong_arg(3));
>> }
>>
>> I use dd to execute the test case:
>> dd if=/dev/zero  of=/dev/rbd0 bs=4M count=1 oflag=direct
>>
>> Case one: Without patch
>> 03:30:23-root@server-186:~$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb
>> 4096
>> 03:30:35-root@server-186:~$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_segments
>> 128
>>
>> The output of systemtap for nornal data:
>> offset:0 length:524288
>> offset:524288 length:524288
>> offset:1048576 length:524288
>> offset:1572864 length:524288
>> offset:2097152 length:524288
>> offset:2621440 length:524288
>> offset:3145728 length:524288
>> offset:3670016 length:524288
>>
>> Case two:With patch
>> cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb
>> 4096
>> 03:49:14-root@server-186:linux-4.0.5$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_segments
>> 1024
>> The output of systemtap for nornal data:
>> offset:0 length:1048576
>> offset:1048576 length:1048576
>> offset:2097152 length:1048576
>> offset:3145728 length:1048576
>>
>> According to the test, you are right.
>> Because the blk-mq doesn't use any scheduling policy.
>> 03:52:13-root@server-186:linux-4.0.5$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/scheduler
>> none
>>
>> In previous versions of the kernel 4.0, the rbd use the defualt
>> scheduler:cfq
>>
>> So, I think that the blk-mq need to do more?
>
> There is no scheduler support in blk-mq as of now but your numbers
> don't have anything to do with that.  The current behaviour is a result
> of a bug in blk-mq.  It's fixed by [1], if you apply it you should see
> 4M requests with your stap script.
>
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1941750
>
Hi.
First, Let's look at the result in the kernel version 3.18
The function blk_limits_max_hw_sectors different implemention between 
3.18 and 4.0+. We need do:
echo 4094 >/sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb

The rbd device information:
11:13:18-root@server-186:~$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb
4094
11:15:28-root@server-186:~$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_segments
1024

The test command:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rbd0 bs=4M count=1

The simple stap script:
probe module("rbd").function("rbd_img_request_create")
{
     printf("offset:%lu length:%lu\n", ulong_arg(2), ulong_arg(3));
}

The output from stap:
offset:0 length:4190208
offset:21474770944 length:4096

Second, thanks for your patch [1].
I use the patch [1], and recompile the kernel.
The test information as shown below:
12:26:12-root@server-186:$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_segments
1024
12:26:23-root@server-186:$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb
4096

The test command:
dd if=/dev/zero  of=/dev/rbd0 bs=4M count=2 oflag=direct

The simple systemtap script:
probe module("rbd").function("rbd_img_request_create")
{
     printf("offset:%lu length:%lu\n", ulong_arg(2), ulong_arg(3));
}

The output of systemtap for nornal data:
offset:0 length:4194304
offset:4194304 length:4194304
offset:21474770944 length:4096

So, I think that the max_segments of request_limits should be divide the
object size by PAGE_SIZE.

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1941750

Thanks.
----
juncheng bai

> Thanks,
>
>                  Ilya
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-16 11:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-06-15 11:18 [PATCH RFC] storage:rbd: make the size of request is equal to the, size of the object juncheng bai
2015-06-15 13:03 ` Ilya Dryomov
2015-06-15 13:23   ` juncheng bai
2015-06-15 14:27     ` Ilya Dryomov
2015-06-16  3:28       ` juncheng bai
2015-06-16  8:37         ` Ilya Dryomov
2015-06-16 11:57           ` juncheng bai [this message]
2015-06-16 13:30             ` Ilya Dryomov
2015-06-16 14:14               ` juncheng bai
2015-06-16 15:51                 ` Ilya Dryomov
2015-06-17  3:04                   ` juncheng bai
2015-06-17  8:24                     ` Ilya Dryomov
2015-06-17  9:47                       ` juncheng bai

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=55800F24.6060100@unitedstack.com \
    --to=baijuncheng@unitedstack.com \
    --cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=elder@inktank.com \
    --cc=elder@linaro.org \
    --cc=idryomov@gmail.com \
    --cc=idryomov@redhat.com \
    --cc=jeff@garzik.org \
    --cc=josh.durgin@inktank.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lucienchao@gmail.com \
    --cc=sage@newdream.net \
    --cc=yehuda@hq.newdream.net \
    /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