All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux Memory Management List" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	<linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>, <lkp@lists.01.org>, <lkp@intel.com>,
	<ying.huang@intel.com>, <feng.tang@intel.com>,
	<zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>, <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [ata] 0568e61225: stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per_sec -15.0% regression
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2022 15:16:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <16f03f81-a8c7-bacf-c74c-67231f7f7202@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3451fa5a-6229-073f-ae18-0c232cd48ed5@huawei.com>

On 09/08/2022 10:58, John Garry wrote:
>>>
>>> commit: 0568e6122574dcc1aded2979cd0245038efe22b6 ("ata: libata-scsi: 
>>> cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors")
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>
>>> in testcase: stress-ng
>>> on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Ice Lake with 256G memory
>>> with following parameters:
>>>
>>>     nr_threads: 10%
>>>     disk: 1HDD
>>>     testtime: 60s
>>>     fs: f2fs
>>>     class: filesystem
>>>     test: copy-file
>>>     cpufreq_governor: performance
>>>     ucode: 0xb000280
>>
>> Without knowing what the device adapter is, hard to say where the 
>> problem is. I
>> suspect that with the patch applied, we may be ending up with a small 
>> default
>> max_sectors value, causing overhead due to more commands than necessary.
>>
>> Will check what I see with my test rig.
> 
> As far as I can see, this patch should not make a difference unless the 
> ATA shost driver is setting the max_sectors value unnecessarily low.

For __ATA_BASE_SHT, we don't set max_sectors. As such, we default 
shost->max_sectors = SCSI_DEFAULT_MAX_SECTORS (=1024) in 
scsi_host_alloc(). I assume no shost dma mapping limit applied.

Then - for example - we could select dev->max_sectors = 
ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 (=65535) in ata_dev_configure().

So with commit 0568e6122574 we would have final max sectors = 1024, as 
opposed to 65535 previously. I guess that the problem is something like 
this.

If so, it seems that we would need to apply the shost dma mapping limit 
separately in ata_scsi_dev_config() and not use shost->max_sectors.

thanks,
John


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [ata] 0568e61225: stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per_sec -15.0% regression
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:16:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <16f03f81-a8c7-bacf-c74c-67231f7f7202@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3451fa5a-6229-073f-ae18-0c232cd48ed5@huawei.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1723 bytes --]

On 09/08/2022 10:58, John Garry wrote:
>>>
>>> commit: 0568e6122574dcc1aded2979cd0245038efe22b6 ("ata: libata-scsi: 
>>> cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors")
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>
>>> in testcase: stress-ng
>>> on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Ice Lake with 256G memory
>>> with following parameters:
>>>
>>>     nr_threads: 10%
>>>     disk: 1HDD
>>>     testtime: 60s
>>>     fs: f2fs
>>>     class: filesystem
>>>     test: copy-file
>>>     cpufreq_governor: performance
>>>     ucode: 0xb000280
>>
>> Without knowing what the device adapter is, hard to say where the 
>> problem is. I
>> suspect that with the patch applied, we may be ending up with a small 
>> default
>> max_sectors value, causing overhead due to more commands than necessary.
>>
>> Will check what I see with my test rig.
> 
> As far as I can see, this patch should not make a difference unless the 
> ATA shost driver is setting the max_sectors value unnecessarily low.

For __ATA_BASE_SHT, we don't set max_sectors. As such, we default 
shost->max_sectors = SCSI_DEFAULT_MAX_SECTORS (=1024) in 
scsi_host_alloc(). I assume no shost dma mapping limit applied.

Then - for example - we could select dev->max_sectors = 
ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 (=65535) in ata_dev_configure().

So with commit 0568e6122574 we would have final max sectors = 1024, as 
opposed to 65535 previously. I guess that the problem is something like 
this.

If so, it seems that we would need to apply the shost dma mapping limit 
separately in ata_scsi_dev_config() and not use shost->max_sectors.

thanks,
John

  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-09 14:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-05  8:05 [ata] 0568e61225: stress-ng.copy-file.ops_per_sec -15.0% regression kernel test robot
2022-08-05  8:05 ` kernel test robot
2022-08-08 14:52 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-08 14:52   ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-09  9:58   ` John Garry
2022-08-09  9:58     ` John Garry
2022-08-09 14:16     ` John Garry [this message]
2022-08-09 14:16       ` John Garry
2022-08-09 14:57       ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-09 14:57         ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-10  8:33         ` John Garry
2022-08-10  8:33           ` John Garry
2022-08-10 13:52           ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-10 13:52             ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-09 14:55     ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-09 14:55       ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-09 15:16       ` David Laight
2022-08-09 15:16         ` David Laight
2022-08-10 13:57         ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-10 13:57           ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-12  5:01       ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-12  5:01         ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-12 11:13         ` John Garry
2022-08-12 11:13           ` John Garry
2022-08-12 14:58           ` John Garry
2022-08-12 14:58             ` John Garry
2022-08-16  6:57             ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-16  6:57               ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-16 10:35               ` John Garry
2022-08-16 10:35                 ` John Garry
2022-08-16 15:42                 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-16 15:42                   ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-16 16:38                   ` John Garry
2022-08-16 16:38                     ` John Garry
2022-08-16 20:02                     ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-16 20:02                       ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-16 20:44                       ` John Garry
2022-08-16 20:44                         ` John Garry
2022-08-17 15:55                         ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-17 15:55                           ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-17 13:51                     ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-17 13:51                       ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-17 14:04                       ` John Garry
2022-08-17 14:04                         ` John Garry
2022-08-18  2:06                         ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-18  2:06                           ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-18  9:28                           ` John Garry
2022-08-18  9:28                             ` John Garry
2022-08-19  6:24                             ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-19  6:24                               ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-19  7:54                               ` John Garry
2022-08-19  7:54                                 ` John Garry
2022-08-20 16:36                               ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-20 16:36                                 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-12 15:41           ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-12 15:41             ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-12 17:17             ` John Garry
2022-08-12 17:17               ` John Garry
2022-08-12 18:27               ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-12 18:27                 ` Damien Le Moal
2022-08-13  7:23                 ` John Garry
2022-08-13  7:23                   ` John Garry
2022-08-16  2:52           ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-16  2:52             ` Oliver Sang

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=16f03f81-a8c7-bacf-c74c-67231f7f7202@huawei.com \
    --to=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.