From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>,
linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] block: optimize for small block size IO
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 09:57:38 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <36786e85-fd19-0631-4acf-c9bf9468d4e1@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <606b9117-1fb6-780b-8fb1-001c06768a2e@kernel.dk>
On 11/2/19 8:03 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/2/19 1:29 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> __blk_queue_split() may be a bit heavy for small block size(such as
>> 512B, or 4KB) IO, so introduce one flag to decide if this bio includes
>> multiple page. And only consider to try splitting this bio in case
>> that the multiple page flag is set.
>>
>> ~3% - 5% IOPS improvement can be observed on io_uring test over
>> null_blk(MQ), and the io_uring test code is from fio/t/io_uring.c
>>
>> bch_bio_map() should be the only one which doesn't use bio_add_page(),
>> so force to mark bio built via bch_bio_map() as MULTI_PAGE.
>>
>> RAID5 has similar usage too, however the bio is really single-page bio,
>> so not necessary to handle it.
>
> Thanks Ming, applied.
Actually, I took a closer look at this. I thought the BIO_MAP_USER
overload would be ok, but that seems potentially fragile and so does
the fact that we need to now maintain an extra state for multipage.
Any serious objections to just doing the somewhat hacky bio->bi_vcnt
check? With a comment I think that's more acceptable, and it doesn't
rely on maintaining extra state. Particularly the latter is a big
win, imho.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-02 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-02 7:29 [PATCH V4] block: optimize for small block size IO Ming Lei
2019-11-02 14:03 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-02 15:57 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2019-11-04 0:01 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-04 18:14 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-11-04 18:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-04 18:17 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-11-04 18:23 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-04 18:42 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-11-05 1:11 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-05 2:11 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-11-05 2:20 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-05 2:30 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-11-05 2:38 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-05 3:14 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-11-05 3:33 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-05 2:46 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-05 2:49 ` Jens Axboe
2019-11-05 3:34 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-05 0:44 ` Ming Lei
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=36786e85-fd19-0631-4acf-c9bf9468d4e1@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.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).