mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tao Cui <cui.tao@linux.dev>
To: axboe@kernel.dk, kbusch@kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, hch@lst.de,
	sagi@grimberg.me, yukuai@fygo.io
Cc: cui.tao@linux.dev, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cuitao@kylinos.cn
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] block: charge passthrough requests to the submitter's cgroup
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2026 15:27:10 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d1509bf3-b56f-4f81-885f-329a5c710c56@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260921070647.1928289-1-cui.tao@linux.dev>

Hi,

在 2026/9/21 15:06, Tao Cui 写道:
> From: Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>
> 
> While looking at cgroup IO control coverage, I stumbled into a hole
> that is probably familiar to people who have worked on passthrough:
> SG_IO, bsg, and the NVMe ioctl / uring command paths build requests
> directly and dispatch them through blk_execute_rq{,_nowait}(),
> never passing through submit_bio().  The mapped bio carries no blkcg
> association, so the bytes never show up in cgroup io.stat, and none
> of the rq_qos policies (iocost, iolatency, wbt) see these commands;
> blk-throttle, hooking submit_bio_noacct() directly, is equally
> blind.  On a scsi_debug device with iocost enabled and vrate pinned
> to its 1% floor, a direct writer in a cgroup is throttled ~10x while
> the same cgroup issuing sg_dd writes runs at full device speed with
> io.stat staying at zero.
> 
> This RFC is a prototype asking for feedback on one possible
> direction, not a proposal I am attached to: is charging passthrough
> at dispatch time the right layer and the right semantics at all?
> 
> The patch associates the mapped bio with the submitter's blkcg in
> blk_execute_rq{,_nowait}(), runs the regular bio accounting
> (blk_cgroup_bio_start()) and the rq_qos throttle path with it, and
> gates by opcode (READ/WRITE/DRV_IN/DRV_OUT, mapping the latter two
> to READ/WRITE for io.stat classification) and to queues that already
> have a gendisk so probing stays exempt.  On linux-next, with
> scsi_debug + sg_dd and qemu emulated nvme + an NVME_IOCTL_IO64_CMD
> loop, the transferred bytes are fully accounted in the issuing
> cgroup, and with vrate clamped the pacing bites: the same 128MB
> SG_IO run takes 0.025s unthrottled and 31.7s at the 1% floor, with
> the issuing task sleeping on the iocost waitqueue like any bio
> submitter.
> 
> Questions I am unsure about:
> 
>  1. Is always-on the right default, or should this hide behind the
>     queue/iostats_passthrough opt-in from the passthrough iostats
>     series, keeping default behavior unchanged?
>  2. The throttle may sleep; all callers I found (ioctl / uring_cmd
>     submit, target and error handling kthreads) are sleepable, and
>     kthread-issued charges land on root and turn into no-ops - but
>     I may have missed paths, and I'd rather ask than assume.
>  3. What should happen on nvme multipath failover, where the bio is
>     re-routed to another queue but carries the original queue's
>     blkg?  Untested; guidance welcome.
>  4. wbt also gains passthrough throttling through the same rq_qos
>     walk - probably benign since wbt targets buffered writeback,
>     but it is a behavior change I did not set out to make.
>  5. blk-throttle does not benefit (it is not an rq_qos policy, and
>     its queue-and-resubmit model does not fit bios already bound to
>     a dispatched request); would a synchronous wait variant there
>     be welcome as follow-up work, or is leaving it alone preferred?
> 
> Reproduction notes in case anyone tries: sg_dd coalesces into very
> large single commands by default (use bpt=1), and a short burst from
> a single cgroup rides the initial budget, so sustained transfers
> are what show the pacing.
> 

The cover letter summarized the motivation briefly, so let me add some
background on how this came up and what the prototype is trying to
address.

How this was found
------------------

This came from stress testing blk-iocost on linux-next with mixed IO
workloads and cgroup churn. With the known bio-path accounting gaps
(flush, zone append) already carrying posted fixes, the remaining
missing cases had one property in common: they build requests directly
and enter through blk_execute_rq(), bypassing submit_bio() entirely.

The invariant being violated is simple to state: any IO that consumes
device bandwidth but bypasses submit_bio() currently bypasses blkcg IO
accounting. Passthrough commands, including SG_IO, bsg, nvme ioctls and
uring commands, currently fall into this category: they have no blkcg
association, do not show up in io.stat, and do not participate in
blkcg-aware rq_qos policies such as iocost and iolatency.

The observable difference
-------------------------

On the same scsi_debug device, with the same cgroup and iocost enabled
with vrate pinned at its 1% floor:

  bio writer (fio)                 throttled ~10x
  SG_IO writer (sg_dd)             full device speed,
                                   io.stat remains zero

The NVMe ioctl path shows the same behavior: passthrough provides a
path that bypasses the existing accounting boundary.

With the prototype patch
------------------------

The mapped bio is associated with the submitting blkcg in
blk_execute_rq{,_nowait}(), and goes through the normal bio accounting
and rq_qos paths.

With the same setup:

  - a 128MB SG_IO write (bs=1M, bpt=1) is accounted to the issuing
    cgroup's io.stat, with wbytes/wios matching the transfer;
  - the same workload takes 0.025s without throttling and 31.7s with
    vrate at the 1% floor, with the task sleeping in the iocost throttle
    path.

Two reproduction notes: sg_dd combines transfers into large commands by
default, so bpt=1 is needed for scsi_debug. Also, short bursts can be
covered by the initial budget; sustained transfers make the difference
visible.

Relation to passthrough iostats
-------------------------------

This RFC builds on Keith's passthrough iostats work. That series made
disk-level passthrough accounting possible and provided block-device
association for passthrough bios where it is available.

This RFC is about the next layer: whether passthrough IO should also
participate in blkcg accounting and enforcement.

The questions from the cover letter still stand. In particular, I am
not sure whether attaching blkcg/accounting at this layer is the right
abstraction, or whether this should remain an opt-in behavior like
passthrough iostats.

Thanks,
Tao

> 
> Tao Cui (1):
>   block: charge passthrough requests to the submitter's cgroup
> 
>  block/blk-mq.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 72 insertions(+)
> 


      parent reply	other threads:[~2026-09-21  7:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-21  7:06 Tao Cui
2026-09-21  7:06 ` [RFC PATCH 1/1] " Tao Cui
2026-09-21 16:51   ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-22  8:09     ` Tao Cui
2026-09-21  7:27 ` Tao Cui [this message]

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=d1509bf3-b56f-4f81-885f-329a5c710c56@linux.dev \
    --to=cui.tao@linux.dev \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cuitao@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=yukuai@fygo.io \
    /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®