On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 11:06 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:54:48PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > On Sat, 2017-09-23 at 01:44 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 03:06:16PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 09:35 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * blk-mq's SCHED_RESTART can cover this requeue, so > > > > > + * we needn't to deal with it by DELAY_REQUEUE. More > > > > > + * importantly, we have to return DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE > > > > > + * so that blk-mq can get the queue busy feedback, > > > > > + * otherwise I/O merge can be hurt. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (q->mq_ops) > > > > > + return DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE; > > > > > + else > > > > > + return DM_MAPIO_DELAY_REQUEUE; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > This patch is inferior to what I posted because this patch does not > > > > avoid > > > > the delay if multiple LUNs are associated with the same SCSI host. > > > > Consider > > > > e.g. the following configuration: > > > > * A single SCSI host with two SCSI LUNs associated to that host, e.g. > > > > /dev/sda > > > > and /dev/sdb. > > > > * A dm-mpath instance has been created on top of /dev/sda. > > > > If all tags are in use by requests queued to /dev/sdb, no dm requests > > > > are in > > > > progress and a request is submitted against the dm-mpath device then the > > > > blk_get_request(q, GFP_ATOMIC) call will fail. The request will be > > > > requeued > > > > and the queue will be rerun after a delay. > > > > > > > > My patch does not introduce a delay in this case. > > > > > > That delay may not matter because SCHED_RESTART will run queue just > > > after one request is completed. > > > > Did you understand what I wrote? SCHED_RESTART will be set for /dev/sdb but > > not > > for the dm queue. That's what I was trying to explain to you in my previous > > e-mail. > > The patch I posted in this thread will set SCHED_RESTART for dm queue.
This is not how communication on an open source mailing list is assumed to work. If you know that you are wrong you are assumed either to shut up or to admit it. And if you disagree with the detailed explanation I gave you are assumed to explain in detail why you think it is wrong. > > > There is at least one issue with get_request(GFP_NOIO): AIO > > > performance regression may not be caused, or even AIO may not > > > be possible. For example, user runs fio(libaio, randread, single > > > job, queue depth: 64, device: dm-mpath disk), if get_request(GFP_NOIO) > > > often blocks because of shared tags or out of tag, the actual queue > > > depth won't reach 64 at all, and may be just 1 in the worst case. > > > Once the actual queue depth is decreased much, random I/O performance > > > should be hurt a lot. > > > > That's why we need to modify scsi_lld_busy(). If scsi_lld_busy() will be > > modified as I proposed in a previous e-mail then it will become very > > unlikely that no tag is available when blk_get_request() is called. With > > that > > scsi_lld_busy() modification it is even possible that we don't need to > > modify > > the dm-mpath driver. > > Then post out a whole solution, and I'd like to take a look and test. I will do that as soon as I have the time to run some measurements. The rest of this week I will be traveling. Bart.
