All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Khazhy Kumykov <khazhy@google.com>,
	Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: Do not merge recursively in elv_attempt_insert_merge()
Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 15:44:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210521134414.GN18952@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YKexrshH5i7mvF6U@T590>

On Fri 21-05-21 21:12:14, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:53:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Fri 21-05-21 08:42:16, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:33:52AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Most of the merging happens at bio level. There should not be much
> > > > merging happening at request level anymore. Furthermore if we backmerged
> > > > a request to the previous one, the chances to be able to merge the
> > > > result to even previous request are slim - that could succeed only if
> > > > requests were inserted in 2 1 3 order. Merging more requests in
> > > 
> > > Right, but some workload has this kind of pattern.
> > > 
> > > For example of qemu IO emulation, it often can be thought as single job,
> > > native aio, direct io with high queue depth. IOs is originated from one VM, but
> > > may be from multiple jobs in the VM, so bio merge may not hit much because of IO
> > > emulation timing(virtio-scsi/blk's MQ, or IO can be interleaved from multiple
> > > jobs via the SQ transport), but request merge can really make a difference, see
> > > recent patch in the following link:
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/3f61e939-d95a-1dd1-6870-e66795cfc1b1@suse.de/T/#t
> > 
> > Oh, request merging definitely does make a difference. But the elevator
> > hash & merge logic I'm modifying here is used only by BFQ and MQ-DEADLINE
> > AFAICT. And these IO schedulers will already call blk_mq_sched_try_merge()
> > from their \.bio_merge handler which gets called from blk_mq_submit_bio().
> > So all the merging that can happen in the code I remove should have already
> > happened. Or am I missing something?
> 
> There might be at least two reasons:
> 
> 1) when .bio_merge() is called, some requests are kept in plug list, so
> the bio may not be merged to requests in scheduler queue; when flushing plug
> list and inserts these requests to scheduler queue, we have to try to
> merge them further

Oh, right, I forgot that plug list stores already requests, not bios.

> 2) only blk_mq_sched_try_insert_merge() is capable of doing aggressive
> request merge, such as, when req A is merged to req B, the function will
> continue to try to merge req B with other in-queue requests, until no
> any further merge can't be done; neither blk_mq_sched_try_merge() nor
> blk_attempt_plug_merge can do such aggressive request merge.

Yes, fair point. I was thinking only about a few requests but it the request
sequence is like 0 2 4 6 ... 2n 1 3 5 7 ... 2n+1, then bio merging will
result in 'n' requests while request merging will be able to get it down to
1 request.

I'll keep the recursive merge and pass back list of requests to free
instead. Thanks for explanations!

								Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-21 13:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-20 22:33 [PATCH 0/2] block: Fix deadlock when merging requests with BFQ Jan Kara
2021-05-20 22:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: Do not merge recursively in elv_attempt_insert_merge() Jan Kara
2021-05-21  0:42   ` Ming Lei
2021-05-21 11:53     ` Jan Kara
2021-05-21 13:12       ` Ming Lei
2021-05-21 13:44         ` Jan Kara [this message]
2021-05-20 22:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] blk: Fix lock inversion between ioc lock and bfqd lock Jan Kara
2021-05-21  0:57   ` Ming Lei
2021-05-21  3:29     ` Khazhy Kumykov
2021-05-21  6:54       ` Ming Lei
2021-05-21 12:05         ` Jan Kara
2021-05-21 13:36           ` Ming Lei
2021-05-21 13:47             ` Jan Kara

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=20210521134414.GN18952@quack2.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=khazhy@google.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
    /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.