From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA8BC43331 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 10:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A49D821924 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 10:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="blY6In19" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726381AbfKIKJa (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Nov 2019 05:09:30 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:29578 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726372AbfKIKJ3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Nov 2019 05:09:29 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1573294168; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=COvRkfB7QtwqnVTHt3MVS0PoIAM0aB4odeSnRONVuV8=; b=blY6In19Qh645f6S3D5+mJFJIRMZu3daa/CKH7TR0bbBVBuEqw7To6jIeHF0BPBWb5fR5S 8PEHnMnfW4H7gupuIF27lNsZAYYCzsLa1CjveAcC0CMMNwvtYwZ+VxSNDKwek3HR/k6zA6 FP6nuJGufhLJ7EsXnqVT2LIxw7Nm+4o= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-338-Hi_ndLc_MxiC1ic0MmTclQ-1; Sat, 09 Nov 2019 05:09:24 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCE591800D7D; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 10:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ming.t460p (ovpn-8-23.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.8.23]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F31EA5D9E2; Sat, 9 Nov 2019 10:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 18:09:03 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Damien Le Moal Cc: Andrea Vai , Alan Stern , Jens Axboe , Johannes Thumshirn , USB list , SCSI development list , Himanshu Madhani , Hannes Reinecke , Omar Sandoval , "Martin K. Petersen" , Greg KH , Hans Holmberg , Kernel development list Subject: Re: Slow I/O on USB media after commit f664a3cc17b7d0a2bc3b3ab96181e1029b0ec0e6 Message-ID: <20191109100903.GA7696@ming.t460p> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-MC-Unique: Hi_ndLc_MxiC1ic0MmTclQ-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-usb-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 08:42:53AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 2019/11/08 4:00, Andrea Vai wrote: > > [Sorry for the duplicate message, it didn't reach the lists due to > > html formatting] > > Il giorno gio 7 nov 2019 alle ore 08:54 Damien Le Moal > > ha scritto: > >> > >> On 2019/11/07 16:04, Andrea Vai wrote: > >>> Il giorno mer, 06/11/2019 alle 22.13 +0000, Damien Le Moal ha scritto= : > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Please simply try your write tests after doing this: > >>>> > >>>> echo mq-deadline > /sys/block/ >>>> disk>/queue/scheduler > >>>> > >>>> And confirm that mq-deadline is selected with: > >>>> > >>>> cat /sys/block//queue/scheduler > >>>> [mq-deadline] kyber bfq none > >>> > >>> ok, which kernel should I test with this: the fresh git cloned, or th= e > >>> one just patched with Alan's patch, or doesn't matter which one? > >> > >> Probably all of them to see if there are any differences. > >=20 > > with both kernels, the output of > > cat /sys/block/sdh/queue/schedule > >=20 > > already contains [mq-deadline]: is it correct to assume that the echo > > command and the subsequent testing is useless? What to do now? >=20 > Probably, yes. Have you obtained a blktrace of the workload during these > tests ? Any significant difference in the IO pattern (IO size and > randomness) and IO timing (any device idle time where the device has no > command to process) ? Asking because the problem may be above the block > layer, with the file system for instance. You may get the IO pattern via the previous trace=20 https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/20190710024439.GA2621@ming.t460p/ IMO, if it is related write order, one possibility could be that the queue lock is killed in .make_request_fn(). Thanks, Ming