From: Jan Kara <email@example.com> To: Ming Lei <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Jan Kara <email@example.com>, Jens Axboe <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Khazhy Kumykov <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Paolo Valente <email@example.com> 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://firstname.lastname@example.org/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 <email@example.com> SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent 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 \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: Do not merge recursively in elv_attempt_insert_merge()' \ /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
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.