Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] blk-mq: Rerun dispatching in the case of budget contention

From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Salman Qazi <sqazi@google.com>,
	linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
	Ajay Joshi <ajay.joshi@wdc.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanya.kulkarni@wdc.com>,
	Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>,
	Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>,
	Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] blk-mq: Rerun dispatching in the case of budget contention
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2020 16:57:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E316A36E-1B2B-47E8-A78C-7DD3F354425A@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=X_S_YHvKkp96f3HVM3uX0VFTCKBxNK3fEu9Yt=NB8wEQ@mail.gmail.com>

> Il giorno 5 apr 2020, alle ore 16:00, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> ha scritto:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 2:15 AM Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> OK, looks it isn't specific on BFQ any more.
>> 
>> Follows another candidate approach for this issue, given it is so hard
>> to trigger, we can make it more reliable by rerun queue when has_work()
>> returns true after ops->dispath_request() returns NULL.
>> 
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
>> index 74cedea56034..4408e5d4fcd8 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
>> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ void blk_mq_sched_restart(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>>        blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);
>> }
>> 
>> +#define BLK_MQ_BUDGET_DELAY    3               /* ms units */
>> /*
>>  * Only SCSI implements .get_budget and .put_budget, and SCSI restarts
>>  * its queue by itself in its completion handler, so we don't need to
>> @@ -103,6 +104,9 @@ static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>>                rq = e->type->ops.dispatch_request(hctx);
>>                if (!rq) {
>>                        blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget(hctx);
>> +
>> +                       if (e->type->ops.has_work && e->type->ops.has_work(hctx))
>> +                               blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(hctx, BLK_MQ_BUDGET_DELAY);
> 
> I agree that your patch should solve the race.  With the current BFQ's
> has_work() it's a bit of a disaster though. It will essentially put
> blk-mq into a busy-wait loop (with a 3 ms delay between each poll)
> while BFQ's has_work() says "true" but BFQ doesn't dispatch anything.
> 
> ...so I guess the question that still needs to be answered: does
> has_work() need to be exact?  If so then we need the patch you propose
> plus one to BFQ.  If not, we should continue along the lines of my
> patch.
> 

Some more comments.  BFQ's I/O plugging lasts 9 ms by default.  So,
with this last Ming's patch, BFQ may happen to be polled every 3ms,
for at most three times.

On the opposite end, making bfq_has_work plugging aware costs more
complexity, and possibly one more lock.  While avoiding the above
occasional polling, this may imply a lot of overhead or CPU stalls on
every dispatch.

Paolo

> -Doug