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
>
next prev parent 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