From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: chengming.zhou@linux.dev, axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de,
ming.lei@redhat.com, kbusch@kernel.org
Cc: mst@redhat.com, sagi@grimberg.me,
damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, kch@nvidia.com,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zhouchengming@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] blk-mq: optimize the queue_rqs() support
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 10:02:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e4701e0e-57a3-6ee3-8686-6b1d3750c124@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230824144403.2135739-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
On 8/24/23 07:43, chengming.zhou@linux.dev wrote:
> From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>
> The current queue_rqs() support has limitation that it can't work on
> shared tags queue, which is resolved by patch 1-3. We move the account
> of active requests to where we really allocate the driver tag.
>
> This is clearer and matched with the unaccount side which now happen
> when we put the driver tag. And we can remove RQF_MQ_INFLIGHT, which
> was used to avoid double account problem of flush request.
>
> Another problem is that the driver that support queue_rqs() has to
> set inflight request table by itself, which is resolved in patch 4.
>
> The patch 5 fixes a potential race problem which may cause false
> timeout because of the reorder of rq->state and rq->deadline.
>
> The patch 6 add support queue_rqs() for null_blk, which showed a
> 3.6% IOPS improvement in fio/t/io_uring benchmark on my test VM.
> And we also use it for testing queue_rqs() on shared tags queue.
Hi Jens and Christoph,
This patch series would be simplified significantly if the code for
fair tag allocation would be removed first
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20230103195337.158625-1-bvanassche@acm.org/,
January 2023).
It has been proposed to improve fair tag sharing but the complexity of
the proposed alternative is scary
(https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20230618160738.54385-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com/,
June 2023).
Does everyone agree with removing the code for fair tag sharing - code
that significantly hurts performance of UFS devices and code that did
not exist in the legacy block layer?
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-24 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-24 14:43 chengming.zhou
2023-08-24 14:43 ` [PATCH 1/6] blk-mq: account active requests when get driver tag chengming.zhou
2023-08-24 14:43 ` [PATCH 2/6] blk-mq: remove RQF_MQ_INFLIGHT chengming.zhou
2023-08-24 14:44 ` [PATCH 3/6] blk-mq: support batched queue_rqs() on shared tags queue chengming.zhou
2023-08-24 14:44 ` [PATCH 4/6] blk-mq: update driver tags request table when start request chengming.zhou
2023-08-24 14:44 ` [PATCH 5/6] blk-mq: fix potential reorder of request state and deadline chengming.zhou
2023-08-24 14:44 ` [PATCH 6/6] block/null_blk: add queue_rqs() support chengming.zhou
2023-08-24 17:02 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2023-08-25 8:24 ` [PATCH 0/6] blk-mq: optimize the " Chengming Zhou
2023-08-27 0:45 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-09-02 15:00 ` Chengming Zhou
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=e4701e0e-57a3-6ee3-8686-6b1d3750c124@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=kch@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=zhouchengming@bytedance.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®