From: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: commit 01e99aeca397 causes longer runtime of block/004
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 01:19:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200305011900.2rtgtmclovmr2fbw@shindev.dhcp.fujisawa.hgst.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200304095344.GA10390@ming.t460p>
On Mar 04, 2020 / 17:53, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 06:11:37AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > On Mar 04, 2020 / 11:46, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 02:38:43AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > > > I noticed that blktests block/004 takes longer runtime with 5.6-rc4 than
> > > > 5.6-rc3, and found that the commit 01e99aeca397 ("blk-mq: insert passthrough
> > > > request into hctx->dispatch directly") triggers it.
> > > >
> > > > The longer runtime was observed with dm-linear device which maps SATA SMR HDD
> > > > connected via AHCI. It was not observed with dm-linear on SAS/SATA SMR HDDs
> > > > connected via SAS-HBA. Not observed with dm-linear on non-SMR HDDs either.
> > > >
> > > > Before the commit, block/004 took around 130 seconds. After the commit, it takes
> > > > around 300 seconds. I need to dig in further details to understand why the
> > > > commit makes the test case longer.
> > > >
> > > > The test case block/004 does "flush intensive workload". Is this longer runtime
> > > > expected?
> > >
> > > The following patch might address this issue:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20200207190416.99928-1-sqazi@google.com/#t
> > >
> > > Please test and provide us the result.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Ming
> > >
> >
> > Hi Ming,
> >
> > I applied the patch to 5.6-rc4 but I observed the longer runtime of block/004.
> > Still it takes around 300 seconds.
>
> Hello Shinichiro,
>
> block/004 only sends 1564 sync randwrite, and seems 130s has been slow
> enough.
>
> There are two related effect in that commit for your issue:
>
> 1) 'at_head' is applied in blk_mq_sched_insert_request() for flush
> request
>
> 2) all IO is added back to tail of hctx->dispatch after .queue_rq()
> returns STS_RESOURCE
>
> Seems it is more related with 2) given you can't reproduce the issue on
> SAS.
>
> So please test the following two patches, and see which one makes a
> difference for you.
>
> BTW, both two looks not reasonable, just for narrowing down the issue.
>
> 1) patch 1
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> index 856356b1619e..86137c75283c 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> @@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ void blk_mq_sched_insert_request(struct request *rq, bool at_head,
> WARN_ON(e && (rq->tag != -1));
>
> if (blk_mq_sched_bypass_insert(hctx, !!e, rq)) {
> - blk_mq_request_bypass_insert(rq, at_head, false);
> + blk_mq_request_bypass_insert(rq, true, false);
> goto run;
> }
Ming, thank you for the trial patches.
This "patch 1" reduced the runtime, as short as rc3.
>
>
> 2) patch 2
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index d92088dec6c3..447d5cb39832 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -1286,7 +1286,7 @@ bool blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(struct request_queue *q, struct list_head *list,
> q->mq_ops->commit_rqs(hctx);
>
> spin_lock(&hctx->lock);
> - list_splice_tail_init(list, &hctx->dispatch);
> + list_splice_init(list, &hctx->dispatch);
> spin_unlock(&hctx->lock);
>
> /*
This patch 2 didn't reduce the runtime.
Wish this report helps.
--
Best Regards,
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-05 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-04 2:38 commit 01e99aeca397 causes longer runtime of block/004 Shinichiro Kawasaki
2020-03-04 3:46 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-04 6:11 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2020-03-04 9:53 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-05 1:19 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki [this message]
2020-03-05 2:48 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-06 6:06 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2020-03-06 8:13 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-07 1:02 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2020-03-07 4:13 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-09 0:07 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2020-03-09 16:14 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-10 3:07 ` Damien Le Moal
2020-03-10 5:54 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2020-03-10 6:00 ` Damien Le Moal
2020-03-10 8:07 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-10 11:07 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2020-03-10 13:37 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-10 14:37 ` Ming Lei
2020-03-11 4:59 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2020-03-11 7:54 ` Ming Lei
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=20200305011900.2rtgtmclovmr2fbw@shindev.dhcp.fujisawa.hgst.com \
--to=shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com \
--cc=Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).