From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B65E61474B4; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715867134; cv=none; b=Fu3L8V/RGRsbyrEjk26mscwseYEpV2eVzPeM+Hja+obnUam5U/485/rpsz2TAu17WtYg8dgCQqgmfqnIwriZBslBXQqZr+/dCQ2Nzvk4LpYPIqHbjax0SCt5jrOcIqJ9nCHnBh/7dEMDbBWXir/BBvz10gu2SFTrRXx/bI+GsXE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715867134; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SyLiGL7iHwYcUTCQzV17dRHo+K34vzQ26/nHK00U0Dk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=luzbjnyYc4T4ZfLPBQY2yIyLHOdfcp3cw4qB1AHbmY+KF7eVZ+LhxO1DXMcNUXw6MkoUO+SUPiKRfQIv5IOh68EKXA+6iHhReuEUEHowPAbekRsQhURnjchvqxyICKEGaQDwqEmCXSSIR7Ldm3q4eauPntLS1WvP5osVrkiR1Tg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=4ZQtU7XF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="4ZQtU7XF" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4VgBDk4qyGzlgMVL; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:45:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1715867124; x=1718459125; bh=x8LBwIIWWmPk2MeweSlKgqm+ Gv+UrO9eXS3tAe90WIo=; b=4ZQtU7XF4CMymS5TSAMJ5b5KAsIt7Ywz68MLKbUF oxJe9nquoFJzSO96q4E99kXvqUrIj27mz/4Qp8FLwK7wY5O4g2Y9t7nabRO9ST8x 60iQQDrj8kFhHwKf1sJLoX/zQRC+VeCQfPmQ234Gug4xYhjynDlaLNqNltQCo1tW LUIkxa68gpQtqaSf01JHHCx8+qDcxWpCj+6NqY/UULBK9p82a7Uz6zaZXo0nlA+7 Yg6WMRsY+n+OgHVK0+TcuWUBdZxNWUuPlJpmIHx4oriiza1e0gc/frKjsa3SOVgK rhzLpcu0vgfGTUChxsqjoH1FqKaA2IsLOTFhO08Gmb2Ntw== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id NXC3SSf5GU_H; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.20.0.79] (unknown [8.9.45.205]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4VgBDg2Zv2zlgT1K; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:45:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 07:45:21 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH stable] block/mq-deadline: fix different priority request on the same zone To: Wu Bo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Wu Bo , stable@vger.kernel.org, Damien Le Moal References: <20240516092838.1790674-1-bo.wu@vivo.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20240516092838.1790674-1-bo.wu@vivo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/16/24 03:28, Wu Bo wrote: > Zoned devices request sequential writing on the same zone. That means > if 2 requests on the saem zone, the lower pos request need to dispatch > to device first. > While different priority has it's own tree & list, request with high > priority will be disptch first. > So if requestA & requestB are on the same zone. RequestA is BE and pos > is X+0. ReqeustB is RT and pos is X+1. RequestB will be disptched before > requestA, which got an ERROR from zoned device. > > This is found in a practice scenario when using F2FS on zoned device. > And it is very easy to reproduce: > 1. Use fsstress to run 8 test processes > 2. Use ionice to change 4/8 processes to RT priority Hi Wu, I agree that there is a problem related to the interaction of I/O priority and zoned storage. A solution with a lower runtime overhead is available here: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20231218211342.2179689-1-bvanassche@acm.org/T/#me97b088c535278fe3d1dc5846b388ed58aa53f46 Are you OK with that alternative solution? Thanks, Bart.