From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:29:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <565868E7.2010807@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVMSNmtcVN1zZ5f=xNbMfpnt7wiQ4U03f1Dk95rOMUQBSw@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> while investigating the crash in scsi_lib.c I found a rather curious
>> behaviour for QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE.
>>
>> While the flag is evaluated in blk_recalc_rq_segments and
>> blk_recount_segments (resulting in nr_phys_segments being
>> computed based on that flag) it is completely ignored
>> during blk_rq_map_sg() or the actual merging itself.
>
> Yes, I guess Jens introduced the flag for decreasing CPU
> consumption when comuputing segments, but it is still
> ignored by blk_rq_map_sg(), but it may not be used
> by some drivers.
>
> After bio splitting is introduced, the flag is also ignored
> when computing segments.
>
>>
>> This typically shouldn't be an issue, seeing that with
>> QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE nr_phys_segments will always be
>> larger than the actual segment count.
>>
>> However, it still makes me wonder:
>> What is the point of having a QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE
>> which doesn't work as advertised?
>> Or, to be precise, which only works for blk-mq?
>> Should we make it work for non-block-mq, too?
>
> Thanks bio splitting, this flag has little effect on performance now,
> so I think it can be removed if Jens has no objection.
>
As per your suggestion we've made some performance measurements,
and 4k fio showed little if no impact:
NO_SG_MERGE:
IOPS R/W: 148097.7+-125.7 / 148124.1+-123.1
BW R/W: 592392.4+-502.7 / 592498.3+-492.3
SG_MERGE:
IOPS R/W: 148054.4+-123.3 / 148082.6+-120.0
BW R/W: 592219.2+-493.5 / 592332.3+-479.7
So the performance benefit lies squarely within the
error margin, making me wonder if it's worth bothering
with having the NO_SG_MERGE flag at all.
Thanks to Johannes for doing the measurements :-)
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-27 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-26 8:13 QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq Hannes Reinecke
2015-11-26 9:21 ` Ming Lei
2015-11-27 14:29 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2015-11-27 16:14 ` 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=565868E7.2010807@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@canonical.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