From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Muraliraja Muniraju <muraliraja.muniraju@rubrik.com>
Cc: linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding multiple workers to the loop device.
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:29:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3c2833ef-5d7f-32ae-bbb0-01d6f812a34b@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAByjrT9=pZGOwDFnJQ60aG-EznV2QK+DQT3a1NEDJr3RU0K_Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Please don't top post, we just lost all context here unless I had fixed
it up for you.
On 1/23/20 12:25 PM, Muraliraja Muniraju wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/21/20 12:25 PM, muraliraja.muniraju wrote:
>>> Current loop device implementation has a single kthread worker and
>>> drains one request at a time to completion. If the underneath device is
>>> slow then this reduces the concurrency significantly. To help in these
>>> cases, adding multiple loop workers increases the concurrency. Also to
>>> retain the old behaviour the default number of loop workers is 1 and can
>>> be tuned via the ioctl.
>>
>> Have you considered using blk-mq for this? Right now loop just does
>> some basic checks and then queues for a thread. If you bump nr_hw_queues
>> up (provide a parameter for that) and set BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING in the
>> tag flags, then that might be a more viable approach for handling this.
>
> I see that the kernel is already is using the multi queues with the
> number of hardware queues is 1. But the problem IMO is that the worker
> seems to be processing 1 request at a time, to parallelize requests
> and have more concurrency more workers needs to be added. I also tried
> increasing the nr_hw_queues without increasing the number of workers,
> I did not see any difference in performance and it stayed the same. It
> allows to queue more requests but it is processed one at a time. I
> have not tried with enabling BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING though. I see that it
> can schedule requests early.
The experiment is useless without BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING set, so you need
that at least. With that, you _will_ see work items processed in
parallel, depending on where they are queued from.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-23 19:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-21 19:25 muraliraja.muniraju
2020-01-23 18:59 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-23 19:02 ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-23 19:25 ` Muraliraja Muniraju
2020-01-23 19:29 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-01-23 19:45 ` Muraliraja Muniraju
[not found] <DM6PR04MB5754D8E261B4200AA62D442D860D0@DM6PR04MB5754.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
2020-01-21 20:01 ` muraliraja.muniraju
2020-01-21 20:03 ` muraliraja.muniraju
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=3c2833ef-5d7f-32ae-bbb0-01d6f812a34b@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=muraliraja.muniraju@rubrik.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®