[PATCH 0/3 v2] Configurable max discard size

[PATCH 0/3 v2] Configurable max discard size

[Jens Axboe]

Hi,

Most drivers use UINT_MAX (or some variant thereof) for max discard
size, since they don't have a real limit for a non-data transferring
command. This is fine from a throughput point of view, but for a lot
of devices (all?), it truly sucks on latency. We've seen cases of
hundreds of msec in latencies for reads/writes when deleting files
on an fs with discard enabled. For the problematic devices that we
have tested, artificially limiting the size of the discards issued
brings it down to a more manageable 1-2ms max latencies.

Changes since v1:

- Keep separate sysfs files for hw and sw max discard values.

- Add patch 3, defaulting to 64MB discard sizes.

-- 
Jens Axboe

[PATCH 1/3] block: have drivers use blk_queue_max_discard_sectors()

[Jens Axboe]

Some drivers use it now, others just set the limits field manually.
But in preparation for splitting this into a hard and soft limit,
ensure that they all call the proper function for setting the hw
limit for discards.

Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
---
 drivers/block/brd.c           | 2 +-
 drivers/block/drbd/drbd_nl.c  | 4 ++--
 drivers/block/loop.c          | 4 ++--
 drivers/block/nbd.c           | 2 +-
 drivers/block/nvme-core.c     | 2 +-
 drivers/block/rbd.c           | 2 +-
 drivers/block/skd_main.c      | 2 +-
 drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 2 +-
 drivers/md/bcache/super.c     | 2 +-
 drivers/mmc/card/queue.c      | 2 +-
 drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c     | 2 +-
 drivers/scsi/sd.c             | 4 ++--
 12 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/brd.c b/drivers/block/brd.c
index 64ab4951e9d6..e573e470bd8a 100644
--- a/drivers/block/brd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/brd.c
@@ -500,7 +500,7 @@ static struct brd_device *brd_alloc(int i)
 	blk_queue_physical_block_size(brd->brd_queue, PAGE_SIZE);
 
 	brd->brd_queue->limits.discard_granularity = PAGE_SIZE;
-	brd->brd_queue->limits.max_discard_sectors = UINT_MAX;
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(brd->brd_queue, UINT_MAX);
 	brd->brd_queue->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 1;
 	queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, brd->brd_queue);
 
diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_nl.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_nl.c
index 74df8cfad414..e80cbefbc2b5 100644
--- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_nl.c
+++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_nl.c
@@ -1156,14 +1156,14 @@ static void drbd_setup_queue_param(struct drbd_device *device, struct drbd_backi
 			/* For now, don't allow more than one activity log extent worth of data
 			 * to be discarded in one go. We may need to rework drbd_al_begin_io()
 			 * to allow for even larger discard ranges */
-			q->limits.max_discard_sectors = DRBD_MAX_DISCARD_SECTORS;
+			blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, DRBD_MAX_DISCARD_SECTORS);
 
 			queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
 			/* REALLY? Is stacking secdiscard "legal"? */
 			if (blk_queue_secdiscard(b))
 				queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_SECDISCARD, q);
 		} else {
-			q->limits.max_discard_sectors = 0;
+			blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, 0);
 			queue_flag_clear_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
 			queue_flag_clear_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_SECDISCARD, q);
 		}
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index f7a4c9d7f721..f9889b6bc02c 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ static void loop_config_discard(struct loop_device *lo)
 	    lo->lo_encrypt_key_size) {
 		q->limits.discard_granularity = 0;
 		q->limits.discard_alignment = 0;
-		q->limits.max_discard_sectors = 0;
+		blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, 0);
 		q->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 0;
 		queue_flag_clear_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
 		return;
@@ -683,7 +683,7 @@ static void loop_config_discard(struct loop_device *lo)
 
 	q->limits.discard_granularity = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize;
 	q->limits.discard_alignment = 0;
-	q->limits.max_discard_sectors = UINT_MAX >> 9;
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, UINT_MAX >> 9);
 	q->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 1;
 	queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
 }
diff --git a/drivers/block/nbd.c b/drivers/block/nbd.c
index 0e385d8e9b86..f169faf9838a 100644
--- a/drivers/block/nbd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/nbd.c
@@ -822,7 +822,7 @@ static int __init nbd_init(void)
 		queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT, disk->queue);
 		queue_flag_clear_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_ADD_RANDOM, disk->queue);
 		disk->queue->limits.discard_granularity = 512;
-		disk->queue->limits.max_discard_sectors = UINT_MAX;
+		blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(disk->queue, UINT_MAX);
 		disk->queue->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 0;
 		blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(disk->queue, 65536);
 		disk->queue->limits.max_sectors = 256;
diff --git a/drivers/block/nvme-core.c b/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
index d1d6141920d3..b1eb9d321071 100644
--- a/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
+++ b/drivers/block/nvme-core.c
@@ -1935,7 +1935,7 @@ static void nvme_config_discard(struct nvme_ns *ns)
 	ns->queue->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 0;
 	ns->queue->limits.discard_alignment = logical_block_size;
 	ns->queue->limits.discard_granularity = logical_block_size;
-	ns->queue->limits.max_discard_sectors = 0xffffffff;
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(ns->queue, 0xffffffff);
 	queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, ns->queue);
 }
 
diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
index d94529d5c8e9..dcc86937f55c 100644
--- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
@@ -3803,7 +3803,7 @@ static int rbd_init_disk(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev)
 	queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
 	q->limits.discard_granularity = segment_size;
 	q->limits.discard_alignment = segment_size;
-	q->limits.max_discard_sectors = segment_size / SECTOR_SIZE;
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, segment_size / SECTOR_SIZE);
 	q->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 1;
 
 	blk_queue_merge_bvec(q, rbd_merge_bvec);
diff --git a/drivers/block/skd_main.c b/drivers/block/skd_main.c
index 1e46eb2305c0..586f9168ffa4 100644
--- a/drivers/block/skd_main.c
+++ b/drivers/block/skd_main.c
@@ -4422,7 +4422,7 @@ static int skd_cons_disk(struct skd_device *skdev)
 	/* DISCARD Flag initialization. */
 	q->limits.discard_granularity = 8192;
 	q->limits.discard_alignment = 0;
-	q->limits.max_discard_sectors = UINT_MAX >> 9;
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, UINT_MAX >> 9);
 	q->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 1;
 	queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
 	queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT, q);
diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
index fb655e8d1e3b..f439ad2800da 100644
--- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
@@ -1244,7 +1244,7 @@ static int zram_add(void)
 	blk_queue_io_min(zram->disk->queue, PAGE_SIZE);
 	blk_queue_io_opt(zram->disk->queue, PAGE_SIZE);
 	zram->disk->queue->limits.discard_granularity = PAGE_SIZE;
-	zram->disk->queue->limits.max_discard_sectors = UINT_MAX;
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(zram->disk->queue, UINT_MAX);
 	/*
 	 * zram_bio_discard() will clear all logical blocks if logical block
 	 * size is identical with physical block size(PAGE_SIZE). But if it is
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
index 94980bfca434..fc8e545ced18 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
@@ -830,7 +830,7 @@ static int bcache_device_init(struct bcache_device *d, unsigned block_size,
 	q->limits.max_sectors		= UINT_MAX;
 	q->limits.max_segment_size	= UINT_MAX;
 	q->limits.max_segments		= BIO_MAX_PAGES;
-	q->limits.max_discard_sectors	= UINT_MAX;
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, UINT_MAX);
 	q->limits.discard_granularity	= 512;
 	q->limits.io_min		= block_size;
 	q->limits.logical_block_size	= block_size;
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c b/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c
index b5a2b145d89f..5daf302835b1 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/card/queue.c
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static void mmc_queue_setup_discard(struct request_queue *q,
 		return;
 
 	queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
-	q->limits.max_discard_sectors = max_discard;
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, max_discard);
 	if (card->erased_byte == 0 && !mmc_can_discard(card))
 		q->limits.discard_zeroes_data = 1;
 	q->limits.discard_granularity = card->pref_erase << 9;
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
index 41acc507b22e..1b96cf771d2b 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c
@@ -423,7 +423,7 @@ int add_mtd_blktrans_dev(struct mtd_blktrans_dev *new)
 
 	if (tr->discard) {
 		queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, new->rq);
-		new->rq->limits.max_discard_sectors = UINT_MAX;
+		blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(new->rq, UINT_MAX);
 	}
 
 	gd->queue = new->rq;
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
index 3b2fcb4fada0..160e44e7b24a 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
@@ -647,7 +647,7 @@ static void sd_config_discard(struct scsi_disk *sdkp, unsigned int mode)
 	switch (mode) {
 
 	case SD_LBP_DISABLE:
-		q->limits.max_discard_sectors = 0;
+		blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, 0);
 		queue_flag_clear_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
 		return;
 
@@ -675,7 +675,7 @@ static void sd_config_discard(struct scsi_disk *sdkp, unsigned int mode)
 		break;
 	}
 
-	q->limits.max_discard_sectors = max_blocks * (logical_block_size >> 9);
+	blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(q, max_blocks * (logical_block_size >> 9));
 	queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, q);
 }
 
-- 
2.4.1.168.g1ea28e1

Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: have drivers use blk_queue_max_discard_sectors()

[Jeff Moyer]

Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> writes:

> Some drivers use it now, others just set the limits field manually.
> But in preparation for splitting this into a hard and soft limit,
> ensure that they all call the proper function for setting the hw
> limit for discards.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>

Some of those >>9's look misplaced, but you didn't introduce that, so...

Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>

[PATCH 2/3] block: make /sys/block/<dev>/queue/discard_max_bytes writeable

[Jens Axboe]

Lots of devices support huge discard sizes these days. Depending
on how the device handles them internally, huge discards can
introduce massive latencies (hundreds of msec) on the device side.

We have a sysfs file, discard_max_bytes, that advertises the max
hardware supported discard size. Make this writeable, and split
the settings into a soft and hard limit. This can be set from
'discard_granularity' and up to the hardware limit.

Add a new sysfs file, 'discard_max_hw_bytes', that shows the hw
set limit.

Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
---
 Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt |  4 +++-
 block/blk-settings.c                |  4 ++++
 block/blk-sysfs.c                   | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 include/linux/blkdev.h              |  1 +
 4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt b/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
index 3a29f8914df9..3748cf827131 100644
--- a/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
+++ b/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ This shows the size of internal allocation of the device in bytes, if
 reported by the device. A value of '0' means device does not support
 the discard functionality.
 
-discard_max_bytes (RO)
+discard_max_bytes (RW)
 ----------------------
 Devices that support discard functionality may have internal limits on
 the number of bytes that can be trimmed or unmapped in a single operation.
@@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ The discard_max_bytes parameter is set by the device driver to the maximum
 number of bytes that can be discarded in a single operation. Discard
 requests issued to the device must not exceed this limit. A discard_max_bytes
 value of 0 means that the device does not support discard functionality.
+Writing a lower value to this file can limit the maximum discard size issued
+to the device, which can help latencies.
 
 discard_zeroes_data (RO)
 ------------------------
diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
index 12600bfffca9..b38d8d723276 100644
--- a/block/blk-settings.c
+++ b/block/blk-settings.c
@@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ void blk_set_default_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
 	lim->chunk_sectors = 0;
 	lim->max_write_same_sectors = 0;
 	lim->max_discard_sectors = 0;
+	lim->max_hw_discard_sectors = 0;
 	lim->discard_granularity = 0;
 	lim->discard_alignment = 0;
 	lim->discard_misaligned = 0;
@@ -303,6 +304,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_queue_chunk_sectors);
 void blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(struct request_queue *q,
 		unsigned int max_discard_sectors)
 {
+	q->limits.max_hw_discard_sectors = max_discard_sectors;
 	q->limits.max_discard_sectors = max_discard_sectors;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_queue_max_discard_sectors);
@@ -641,6 +643,8 @@ int blk_stack_limits(struct queue_limits *t, struct queue_limits *b,
 
 		t->max_discard_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_discard_sectors,
 						      b->max_discard_sectors);
+		t->max_hw_discard_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_hw_discard_sectors,
+							 b->max_hw_discard_sectors);
 		t->discard_granularity = max(t->discard_granularity,
 					     b->discard_granularity);
 		t->discard_alignment = lcm_not_zero(t->discard_alignment, alignment) %
diff --git a/block/blk-sysfs.c b/block/blk-sysfs.c
index 6264b382d4d1..b1f34e463c0f 100644
--- a/block/blk-sysfs.c
+++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c
@@ -145,12 +145,43 @@ static ssize_t queue_discard_granularity_show(struct request_queue *q, char *pag
 	return queue_var_show(q->limits.discard_granularity, page);
 }
 
+static ssize_t queue_discard_max_hw_show(struct request_queue *q, char *page)
+{
+	unsigned long long val;
+
+	val = q->limits.max_hw_discard_sectors << 9;
+	return sprintf(page, "%llu\n", val);
+}
+
 static ssize_t queue_discard_max_show(struct request_queue *q, char *page)
 {
 	return sprintf(page, "%llu\n",
 		       (unsigned long long)q->limits.max_discard_sectors << 9);
 }
 
+static ssize_t queue_discard_max_store(struct request_queue *q,
+				       const char *page, size_t count)
+{
+	unsigned long max_discard;
+	ssize_t ret = queue_var_store(&max_discard, page, count);
+
+	if (ret < 0)
+		return ret;
+
+	if (max_discard & (q->limits.discard_granularity - 1))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	max_discard >>= 9;
+	if (max_discard > UINT_MAX)
+		return -EINVAL;
+
+	if (max_discard > q->limits.max_hw_discard_sectors)
+		max_discard = q->limits.max_hw_discard_sectors;
+
+	q->limits.max_discard_sectors = max_discard;
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static ssize_t queue_discard_zeroes_data_show(struct request_queue *q, char *page)
 {
 	return queue_var_show(queue_discard_zeroes_data(q), page);
@@ -360,9 +391,15 @@ static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_discard_granularity_entry = {
 	.show = queue_discard_granularity_show,
 };
 
+static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_discard_max_hw_entry = {
+	.attr = {.name = "discard_max_hw_bytes", .mode = S_IRUGO },
+	.show = queue_discard_max_hw_show,
+};
+
 static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_discard_max_entry = {
-	.attr = {.name = "discard_max_bytes", .mode = S_IRUGO },
+	.attr = {.name = "discard_max_bytes", .mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR },
 	.show = queue_discard_max_show,
+	.store = queue_discard_max_store,
 };
 
 static struct queue_sysfs_entry queue_discard_zeroes_data_entry = {
@@ -421,6 +458,7 @@ static struct attribute *default_attrs[] = {
 	&queue_io_opt_entry.attr,
 	&queue_discard_granularity_entry.attr,
 	&queue_discard_max_entry.attr,
+	&queue_discard_max_hw_entry.attr,
 	&queue_discard_zeroes_data_entry.attr,
 	&queue_write_same_max_entry.attr,
 	&queue_nonrot_entry.attr,
diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
index d4068c17d0df..243f29e779ec 100644
--- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -268,6 +268,7 @@ struct queue_limits {
 	unsigned int		io_min;
 	unsigned int		io_opt;
 	unsigned int		max_discard_sectors;
+	unsigned int		max_hw_discard_sectors;
 	unsigned int		max_write_same_sectors;
 	unsigned int		discard_granularity;
 	unsigned int		discard_alignment;
-- 
2.4.1.168.g1ea28e1

Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: make /sys/block/<dev>/queue/discard_max_bytes writeable

[Jeff Moyer]

Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> writes:

> Lots of devices support huge discard sizes these days. Depending
> on how the device handles them internally, huge discards can
> introduce massive latencies (hundreds of msec) on the device side.
>
> We have a sysfs file, discard_max_bytes, that advertises the max
> hardware supported discard size. Make this writeable, and split
> the settings into a soft and hard limit. This can be set from
> 'discard_granularity' and up to the hardware limit.
>
> Add a new sysfs file, 'discard_max_hw_bytes', that shows the hw
> set limit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt |  4 +++-
>  block/blk-settings.c                |  4 ++++
>  block/blk-sysfs.c                   | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  include/linux/blkdev.h              |  1 +
>  4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt b/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
> index 3a29f8914df9..3748cf827131 100644
> --- a/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ This shows the size of internal allocation of the device in bytes, if
>  reported by the device. A value of '0' means device does not support
>  the discard functionality.
>  
> -discard_max_bytes (RO)
> +discard_max_bytes (RW)
>  ----------------------
>  Devices that support discard functionality may have internal limits on
>  the number of bytes that can be trimmed or unmapped in a single operation.
> @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ The discard_max_bytes parameter is set by the device driver to the maximum
>  number of bytes that can be discarded in a single operation. Discard
>  requests issued to the device must not exceed this limit. A discard_max_bytes
>  value of 0 means that the device does not support discard functionality.
> +Writing a lower value to this file can limit the maximum discard size issued
> +to the device, which can help latencies.

You forgot to add a new entry for discard_max_hw_bytes.  Fix that and
you can slap my 'Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>' on there.

Cheers,
Jeff

Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: make /sys/block/<dev>/queue/discard_max_bytes writeable

[Jens Axboe]

On 07/16/2015 09:07 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> writes:
>
>> Lots of devices support huge discard sizes these days. Depending
>> on how the device handles them internally, huge discards can
>> introduce massive latencies (hundreds of msec) on the device side.
>>
>> We have a sysfs file, discard_max_bytes, that advertises the max
>> hardware supported discard size. Make this writeable, and split
>> the settings into a soft and hard limit. This can be set from
>> 'discard_granularity' and up to the hardware limit.
>>
>> Add a new sysfs file, 'discard_max_hw_bytes', that shows the hw
>> set limit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt |  4 +++-
>>   block/blk-settings.c                |  4 ++++
>>   block/blk-sysfs.c                   | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   include/linux/blkdev.h              |  1 +
>>   4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt b/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
>> index 3a29f8914df9..3748cf827131 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/block/queue-sysfs.txt
>> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ This shows the size of internal allocation of the device in bytes, if
>>   reported by the device. A value of '0' means device does not support
>>   the discard functionality.
>>
>> -discard_max_bytes (RO)
>> +discard_max_bytes (RW)
>>   ----------------------
>>   Devices that support discard functionality may have internal limits on
>>   the number of bytes that can be trimmed or unmapped in a single operation.
>> @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@ The discard_max_bytes parameter is set by the device driver to the maximum
>>   number of bytes that can be discarded in a single operation. Discard
>>   requests issued to the device must not exceed this limit. A discard_max_bytes
>>   value of 0 means that the device does not support discard functionality.
>> +Writing a lower value to this file can limit the maximum discard size issued
>> +to the device, which can help latencies.
>
> You forgot to add a new entry for discard_max_hw_bytes.  Fix that and
> you can slap my 'Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>' on there.

I thought you meant sysfs, so I had to go back and check. But 
documentation, yep, I forgot that. I'll add it. Thanks!

-- 
Jens Axboe

[PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Jens Axboe]

Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.

This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.

Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
---
 block/blk-settings.c   | 2 ++
 include/linux/blkdev.h | 5 +++++
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
index b38d8d723276..b98d26fcbf81 100644
--- a/block/blk-settings.c
+++ b/block/blk-settings.c
@@ -306,6 +306,8 @@ void blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(struct request_queue *q,
 {
 	q->limits.max_hw_discard_sectors = max_discard_sectors;
 	q->limits.max_discard_sectors = max_discard_sectors;
+	if (q->limits.max_discard_sectors > BLK_DISCARD_MAX_SECTORS)
+		q->limits.max_discard_sectors = BLK_DISCARD_MAX_SECTORS;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_queue_max_discard_sectors);
 
diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
index 243f29e779ec..3a01b16397c4 100644
--- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
+++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
@@ -1141,6 +1141,11 @@ enum blk_default_limits {
 	BLK_SAFE_MAX_SECTORS	= 255,
 	BLK_MAX_SEGMENT_SIZE	= 65536,
 	BLK_SEG_BOUNDARY_MASK	= 0xFFFFFFFFUL,
+
+	/*
+	 * Default to max 64MB of discards, to keep latencies in check
+	 */
+	BLK_DISCARD_MAX_SECTORS	= (64 * 1024 * 1024UL) >> 9,
 };
 
 #define blkdev_entry_to_request(entry) list_entry((entry), struct request, queuelist)
-- 
2.4.1.168.g1ea28e1

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Mike Snitzer]

On Tue, Jul 14 2015 at  2:48pm -0400,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:

> Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
> reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
> 64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.
> 
> This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
> point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
> issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
> have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>

Christoph suggested you impose this default for the specific
drivers/devices that benefit.  I'm not following why imposing a 64MB
default is the right thing to do for all devices.

If this goes in I know for sure I'll need to work around it in DM-thinp.

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Jens Axboe]

On 07/14/2015 02:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14 2015 at  2:48pm -0400,
> Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
>
>> Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
>> reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
>> 64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.
>>
>> This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
>> point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
>> issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
>> have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
>
> Christoph suggested you impose this default for the specific
> drivers/devices that benefit.  I'm not following why imposing a 64MB
> default is the right thing to do for all devices.

I'd argue that's most of them... But the testing we did was on NVMe. I 
can limit it to NVMe, no big deal.

> If this goes in I know for sure I'll need to work around it in DM-thinp.

In any case, that's a good point, dm/md should not have their own lower 
restrictions.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Jens Axboe]

On 07/14/2015 02:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 02:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 14 2015 at  2:48pm -0400,
>> Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
>>> reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
>>> 64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.
>>>
>>> This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
>>> point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
>>> issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
>>> have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
>>
>> Christoph suggested you impose this default for the specific
>> drivers/devices that benefit.  I'm not following why imposing a 64MB
>> default is the right thing to do for all devices.
>
> I'd argue that's most of them... But the testing we did was on NVMe. I
> can limit it to NVMe, no big deal.

Oh, and LSI flash too, so not just NVMe.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Austin S Hemmelgarn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1410 bytes --]

On 2015-07-14 17:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 02:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 07/14/2015 02:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 14 2015 at  2:48pm -0400,
>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
>>>> reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
>>>> 64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.
>>>>
>>>> This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
>>>> point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
>>>> issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
>>>> have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
>>>
>>> Christoph suggested you impose this default for the specific
>>> drivers/devices that benefit.  I'm not following why imposing a 64MB
>>> default is the right thing to do for all devices.
>>
>> I'd argue that's most of them... But the testing we did was on NVMe. I
>> can limit it to NVMe, no big deal.
>
> Oh, and LSI flash too, so not just NVMe.
>
While I don't have time to test it, I have a feeling that such a limit 
would help with many of the consumer SSD's out there.  Secondarily, once 
this gets in and discard is fixed for BTRFS, I'll have some performance 
testing to do WRT dm-thinp.


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2967 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Jens Axboe]

On 07/15/2015 05:46 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2015-07-14 17:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 07/14/2015 02:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 07/14/2015 02:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 14 2015 at  2:48pm -0400,
>>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
>>>>> reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
>>>>> 64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
>>>>> point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
>>>>> issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
>>>>> have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
>>>>
>>>> Christoph suggested you impose this default for the specific
>>>> drivers/devices that benefit.  I'm not following why imposing a 64MB
>>>> default is the right thing to do for all devices.
>>>
>>> I'd argue that's most of them... But the testing we did was on NVMe. I
>>> can limit it to NVMe, no big deal.
>>
>> Oh, and LSI flash too, so not just NVMe.
>>
> While I don't have time to test it, I have a feeling that such a limit
> would help with many of the consumer SSD's out there.  Secondarily, once
> this gets in and discard is fixed for BTRFS, I'll have some performance
> testing to do WRT dm-thinp.

Right, that was the point of it. After more consideration, a default 
"sane" limit should be applied to any non-stacked device.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Mike Snitzer]

On Wed, Jul 15 2015 at 11:30am -0400,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:

> On 07/15/2015 05:46 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >On 2015-07-14 17:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>On 07/14/2015 02:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>On 07/14/2015 02:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, Jul 14 2015 at  2:48pm -0400,
> >>>>Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
> >>>>>reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
> >>>>>64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
> >>>>>point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
> >>>>>issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
> >>>>>have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>Christoph suggested you impose this default for the specific
> >>>>drivers/devices that benefit.  I'm not following why imposing a 64MB
> >>>>default is the right thing to do for all devices.
> >>>
> >>>I'd argue that's most of them... But the testing we did was on NVMe. I
> >>>can limit it to NVMe, no big deal.
> >>
> >>Oh, and LSI flash too, so not just NVMe.
> >>
> >While I don't have time to test it, I have a feeling that such a limit
> >would help with many of the consumer SSD's out there.  Secondarily, once
> >this gets in and discard is fixed for BTRFS, I'll have some performance
> >testing to do WRT dm-thinp.
> 
> Right, that was the point of it. After more consideration, a default
> "sane" limit should be applied to any non-stacked device.

Sounds good.

For DM thinp, it can handle really large discards efficiently (without
passing discards down to the underlying data device).  But if/when
discard passdown is enabled it'll obviously split those larger discards
based on this new "sane" limit of the underlying data device.

Which would then potentially usher in the problem of discard latency
being high for DM thinp (if discard passdown is enabled).  But in
practice I doubt that will be much of a concern.  I'll keep both pieces
if I'm wrong ;)

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Jens Axboe]

On 07/15/2015 10:29 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15 2015 at 11:30am -0400,
> Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/15/2015 05:46 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> On 2015-07-14 17:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 07/14/2015 02:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 07/14/2015 02:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 14 2015 at  2:48pm -0400,
>>>>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
>>>>>>> reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
>>>>>>> 64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
>>>>>>> point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
>>>>>>> issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
>>>>>>> have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christoph suggested you impose this default for the specific
>>>>>> drivers/devices that benefit.  I'm not following why imposing a 64MB
>>>>>> default is the right thing to do for all devices.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd argue that's most of them... But the testing we did was on NVMe. I
>>>>> can limit it to NVMe, no big deal.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and LSI flash too, so not just NVMe.
>>>>
>>> While I don't have time to test it, I have a feeling that such a limit
>>> would help with many of the consumer SSD's out there.  Secondarily, once
>>> this gets in and discard is fixed for BTRFS, I'll have some performance
>>> testing to do WRT dm-thinp.
>>
>> Right, that was the point of it. After more consideration, a default
>> "sane" limit should be applied to any non-stacked device.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> For DM thinp, it can handle really large discards efficiently (without
> passing discards down to the underlying data device).  But if/when
> discard passdown is enabled it'll obviously split those larger discards
> based on this new "sane" limit of the underlying data device.
>
> Which would then potentially usher in the problem of discard latency
> being high for DM thinp (if discard passdown is enabled).  But in
> practice I doubt that will be much of a concern.  I'll keep both pieces
> if I'm wrong ;)

Lets focus on patch 1+2 for now, so I can queue those up. 
Acked/reviewed-by's welcome. Then we can tackle the "what is a sane 
default and for whom" patch 3 later, it's orthogonal to exposing the knob.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: by default, limit maximum discard size to 64MB

[Mike Snitzer]

On Wed, Jul 15 2015 at  6:14pm -0400,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:

> On 07/15/2015 10:29 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 15 2015 at 11:30am -0400,
> >Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 07/15/2015 05:46 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
> >>>On 2015-07-14 17:48, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>>On 07/14/2015 02:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>>>On 07/14/2015 02:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>>>>>On Tue, Jul 14 2015 at  2:48pm -0400,
> >>>>>>Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Lots of devices exhibit very high latencies for big discards, hurting
> >>>>>>>reads and writes. By default, limit the max discard we will build to
> >>>>>>>64MB. This value has shown good results across a number of devices.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>This will potentially hurt discard throughput, from a provisioning
> >>>>>>>point of view (when the user does mkfs.xfs, for instance, and mkfs
> >>>>>>>issues a full device discard). If that becomes an issue, we could
> >>>>>>>have different behavior for provisioning vs runtime discards.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Christoph suggested you impose this default for the specific
> >>>>>>drivers/devices that benefit.  I'm not following why imposing a 64MB
> >>>>>>default is the right thing to do for all devices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'd argue that's most of them... But the testing we did was on NVMe. I
> >>>>>can limit it to NVMe, no big deal.
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh, and LSI flash too, so not just NVMe.
> >>>>
> >>>While I don't have time to test it, I have a feeling that such a limit
> >>>would help with many of the consumer SSD's out there.  Secondarily, once
> >>>this gets in and discard is fixed for BTRFS, I'll have some performance
> >>>testing to do WRT dm-thinp.
> >>
> >>Right, that was the point of it. After more consideration, a default
> >>"sane" limit should be applied to any non-stacked device.
> >
> >Sounds good.
> >
> >For DM thinp, it can handle really large discards efficiently (without
> >passing discards down to the underlying data device).  But if/when
> >discard passdown is enabled it'll obviously split those larger discards
> >based on this new "sane" limit of the underlying data device.
> >
> >Which would then potentially usher in the problem of discard latency
> >being high for DM thinp (if discard passdown is enabled).  But in
> >practice I doubt that will be much of a concern.  I'll keep both pieces
> >if I'm wrong ;)
> 
> Lets focus on patch 1+2 for now, so I can queue those up.
> Acked/reviewed-by's welcome. Then we can tackle the "what is a sane
> default and for whom" patch 3 later, it's orthogonal to exposing the
> knob.

Hey Jens,

I happened upon the 2 patches you staged for 4.3:
http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-block.git;a=commit;h=2bb4cd5cc472b191a46938becb7dafdd44644329
http://git.kernel.dk/?p=linux-block.git;a=commit;h=0034af036554c39eefd14d835a8ec3496ac46712

I noticed that none of DM is touched by the first wrapper patch
(e.g. thin_io_hints should use it).  I guess I should go through and
prepare DM changes for 4.3 that go along with your patches (rebase
dm-4.3 ontop of your for-4.3-core)?

But that aside, I also checked with Joe Thornber about your desire to
have the soft limit default to 64MB.  Joe said he'd be fine with that;
so you could go ahead and queue up that change if you like.

Mike