xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Vincent, Pradeep" <pradeepv@amazon.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blkback: Fix block I/O latency issue
Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 18:10:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <C9E484DF.1301D%pradeepv@amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DBE83BF020000780003F1DC@vpn.id2.novell.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5048 bytes --]

Thanks Jan.

Re: avoid unnecessary notification

If this was a deliberate design choice then the duration of the delay is
at the mercy of the pending I/O latencies & I/O patterns and the delay is
simply too long in some cases. E.g. A write I/O stuck behind a read I/O
could see more than double the latency on a Xen guest compared to a
baremetal host. Avoiding notifications this way results in significant
latency degradation perceived by many applications.

If this is about allowing I/O scheduler to coalesce more I/Os, then I bet
I/O scheduler's 'wait and coalesce' logic is a great substitute for the
delays introduced by blkback.

I totally agree IRQ coalescing or delay is useful for both blkback and
netback but we need a logic that doesn't impact I/O latencies
significantly. Also, I don't think netback has this type of notification
avoidance logic (at least in 2.6.18 code base).


Re: Other points

Good call. Changed the patch to include tabs.

I wasn't very sure about blk_ring_lock usage and I should have clarified
it before sending out the patch.

Assuming blk_ring_lock was meant to protect shared ring manipulations
within blkback, is there a reason 'blk_rings->common.req_cons'
manipulation in do_block_io_op is not protected ? The reasons for the
differences between locking logic in do_block_io_op and make_response
weren't terribly obvious although the failure mode for the race condition
may very well be benign.

Anyway, I am attaching a patch with appropriate changes.

Jeremey, Can you apply this patch to pvops Dom-0
(http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git). Should I
submit another patch for 2.6.18 Dom-0 ?


Signed-off-by: Pradeep Vincent <pradeepv@amazon.com>

diff --git a/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
--- a/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
@@ -315,6 +315,7 @@ static int do_block_io_op(blkif_t *blkif)
  pending_req_t *pending_req;
  RING_IDX rc, rp;
  int more_to_do = 0;
+ unsigned long     flags;
 
  rc = blk_rings->common.req_cons;
  rp = blk_rings->common.sring->req_prod;
@@ -383,6 +384,15 @@ static int do_block_io_op(blkif_t *blkif)
   cond_resched();
  }
 
+ /* If blkback might go to sleep (i.e. more_to_do == 0) then we better
+    let blkfront know about it (by setting req_event appropriately) so
that
+    blkfront will bother to wake us up (via interrupt) when it submits a
+    new I/O */
+ if (!more_to_do){
+  spin_lock_irqsave(&blkif->blk_ring_lock, flags);
+  RING_FINAL_CHECK_FOR_REQUESTS(&blk_rings->common, more_to_do);
+  spin_unlock_irqrestore(&blkif->blk_ring_lock, flags);
+ }
  return more_to_do;
 }
 







On 5/2/11 1:13 AM, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>>>> On 02.05.11 at 09:04, "Vincent, Pradeep" <pradeepv@amazon.com> wrote:
>> In blkback driver, after I/O requests are submitted to Dom-0 block I/O
>> subsystem, blkback goes to 'sleep' effectively without letting blkfront
>>know 
>> about it (req_event isn't set appropriately). Hence blkfront doesn't
>>notify 
>> blkback when it submits a new I/O thus delaying the 'dispatch' of the
>>new I/O 
>> to Dom-0 block I/O subsystem. The new I/O is dispatched as soon as one
>>of the 
>> previous I/Os completes.
>> 
>> As a result of this issue, the block I/O latency performance is
>>degraded for 
>> some workloads on Xen guests using blkfront-blkback stack.
>> 
>> The following change addresses this issue:
>> 
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Pradeep Vincent <pradeepv@amazon.com>
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
>>b/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
>> --- a/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
>> +++ b/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
>> @@ -383,6 +383,12 @@ static int do_block_io_op(blkif_t *blkif)
>>   cond_resched();
>>   }
>> 
>> + /* If blkback might go to sleep (i.e. more_to_do == 0) then we better
>> +   let blkfront know about it (by setting req_event appropriately) so
>>that
>> +   blkfront will bother to wake us up (via interrupt) when it submits a
>> +   new I/O */
>> +        if (!more_to_do)
>> +                 RING_FINAL_CHECK_FOR_REQUESTS(&blk_rings->common,
>>more_to_do);
>
>To me this contradicts the comment preceding the use of
>RING_FINAL_CHECK_FOR_REQUESTS() in make_response()
>(there it's supposedly used to avoid unnecessary notification,
>here you say it's used to force notification). Albeit I agree that
>the change looks consistent with the comments in io/ring.h.
>
>Even if correct, you're not holding blkif->blk_ring_lock here, and
>hence I think you'll need to explain how this is not a problem.
>
>From a formal perspective, you also want to correct usage of tabs,
>and (assuming this is intended for the 2.6.18 tree) you'd also need
>to indicate so for Keir to pick this up and apply it to that tree (and
>it might then also be a good idea to submit an equivalent patch for
>the pv-ops trees).
>
>Jan
>
>>   return more_to_do;
>>  }
>
>
>


[-- Attachment #2: blkback-bugfix-reqevent-assignment.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 993 bytes --]

Signed-off-by: Pradeep Vincent <pradeepv@amazon.com>

diff --git a/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
--- a/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/blkback/blkback.c
@@ -315,6 +315,7 @@ static int do_block_io_op(blkif_t *blkif)
 	pending_req_t *pending_req;
 	RING_IDX rc, rp;
 	int more_to_do = 0;
+	unsigned long     flags;
 
 	rc = blk_rings->common.req_cons;
 	rp = blk_rings->common.sring->req_prod;
@@ -383,6 +384,15 @@ static int do_block_io_op(blkif_t *blkif)
 		cond_resched();
 	}
 
+	/* If blkback might go to sleep (i.e. more_to_do == 0) then we better
+	   let blkfront know about it (by setting req_event appropriately) so that
+	   blkfront will bother to wake us up (via interrupt) when it submits a 
+	   new I/O */
+	if (!more_to_do){
+		spin_lock_irqsave(&blkif->blk_ring_lock, flags);
+		RING_FINAL_CHECK_FOR_REQUESTS(&blk_rings->common, more_to_do);
+		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&blkif->blk_ring_lock, flags);
+	}
 	return more_to_do;
 }
 

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2011-05-03  1:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-05-02  7:04 [PATCH] blkback: Fix block I/O latency issue Vincent, Pradeep
2011-05-02  8:13 ` Jan Beulich
2011-05-03  1:10   ` Vincent, Pradeep [this message]
2011-05-03 14:55     ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-03 17:16       ` Vincent, Pradeep
2011-05-03 17:51         ` Daniel Stodden
2011-05-03 23:41           ` Vincent, Pradeep
2011-05-03 17:52     ` Daniel Stodden
2011-05-04  1:54       ` Vincent, Pradeep
2011-05-09 20:24         ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-13  0:40           ` Vincent, Pradeep
2011-05-13  2:51             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-16 15:22               ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-20  6:12                 ` Vincent, Pradeep
2011-05-24 16:02                   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-24 22:40                     ` Vincent, Pradeep
2011-05-28 20:12 ` [RE-PATCH] " Daniel Stodden
2011-05-28 20:21   ` [PATCH] xen/blkback: Don't let in-flight requests defer pending ones Daniel Stodden
2011-05-29  8:09     ` Vincent, Pradeep
2011-05-29 11:34       ` Daniel Stodden
2011-06-01  8:02         ` Vincent, Pradeep
2011-06-01  8:24           ` Jan Beulich
2011-06-01 17:49           ` Daniel Stodden
2011-06-01 18:07             ` Daniel Stodden
2011-06-27 14:03             ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-06-27 18:42               ` Daniel Stodden
2011-06-27 19:13                 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-06-28  0:31                   ` Daniel Stodden
2011-06-28 13:19                     ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-31 13:44       ` Fix wrong help message for parameter nestedhvm Dong, Eddie
2011-05-31 16:23         ` Ian Campbell
2011-05-31 16:08     ` [PATCH] xen/blkback: Don't let in-flight requests defer pending ones Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2011-05-31 16:30       ` Daniel Stodden

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=C9E484DF.1301D%pradeepv@amazon.com \
    --to=pradeepv@amazon.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).