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 \
    --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.