From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
axboe@kernel.dk, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>,
Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] block: Extand commit_rqs() to do batch processing
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 02:23:14 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8f2ddabc-01d0-dae9-f958-1b26a6bdf58c@grimberg.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200511012942.GA1418834@T590>
>>> Basically, my idea is to dequeue request one by one, and for each
>>> dequeued request:
>>>
>>> - we try to get a budget and driver tag, if both succeed, add the
>>> request to one per-task list which can be stored in stack variable,
>>> then continue to dequeue more request
>>>
>>> - if either budget or driver tag can't be allocated for this request,
>>> marks the last request in the per-task list as .last, and send the
>>> batching requests stored in the list to LLD
>>>
>>> - when queueing batching requests to LLD, if one request isn't queued
>>> to driver successfully, calling .commit_rqs() like before, meantime
>>> adding the remained requests in the per-task list back to scheduler
>>> queue or hctx->dispatch.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>>> One issue is that this way might degrade sequential IO performance if
>>> the LLD just tells queue busy to blk-mq via return value of .queue_rq(),
>>> so I guess we still may need one flag, such as BLK_MQ_F_BATCHING_SUBMISSION.
>>
>> Why is that degrading sequential I/O performance? because the specific
>
> Some devices may only return BLK_STS_RESOURCE from .queue_rq(), then more
> requests are dequeued from scheduler queue if we always queue batching IOs
> to LLD, and chance of IO merge is reduced, so sequential IO performance will
> be effected.
>
> Such as some scsi device which doesn't use sdev->queue_depth for
> throttling IOs.
>
> For virtio-scsi or virtio-blk, we may stop queue for avoiding the
> potential affect.
Do we have a way to characterize such devices? I'd assume that most
devices will benefit from the batching so maybe the flag needs to be
inverted? BLK_MQ_F_DONT_BATCHING_SUBMISSION?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-11 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-26 9:38 [RFC PATCH v2 0/7] Add MMC packed request support Baolin Wang
2020-04-26 9:38 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] block: Extand commit_rqs() to do batch processing Baolin Wang
2020-04-27 15:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-04-28 8:02 ` Baolin Wang
2020-05-08 21:35 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-05-08 21:46 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-08 22:19 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-05-08 23:22 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-09 8:57 ` Baolin Wang
2020-05-09 9:43 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-10 7:44 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-05-11 1:29 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-11 9:23 ` Sagi Grimberg [this message]
2020-05-11 11:47 ` Ming Lei
2020-05-12 6:26 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-05-12 7:55 ` Ming Lei
2020-04-26 9:38 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/7] mmc: Add MMC packed request support for MMC software queue Baolin Wang
2020-04-26 9:38 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/7] mmc: host: sdhci: Introduce ADMA3 transfer mode Baolin Wang
2020-04-26 9:38 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/7] mmc: host: sdhci: Factor out the command configuration Baolin Wang
2020-04-26 9:38 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/7] mmc: host: sdhci: Remove redundant sg_count member of struct sdhci_host Baolin Wang
2020-04-26 9:38 ` [RFC PATCH v2 6/7] mmc: host: sdhci: Add MMC packed request support Baolin Wang
2020-04-26 9:39 ` [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] mmc: host: sdhci-sprd: " Baolin Wang
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=8f2ddabc-01d0-dae9-f958-1b26a6bdf58c@grimberg.me \
--to=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=baolin.wang7@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=orsonzhai@gmail.com \
--cc=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
--cc=zhang.lyra@gmail.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).