lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V6 4/5] blk-mq-sched: improve dispatching from sw queue
From
Date
On 10/12/2017 09:33 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 18:01 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Even EWMA approach isn't good on SCSI-MQ too, because
>> some SCSI's .cmd_per_lun is very small, such as 3 on
>> lpfc and qla2xxx, and one full flush will trigger
>> BLK_STS_RESOURCE easily.
>>
>> So I suggest to use the way of q->queue_depth first, since we
>> don't get performance degrade report on other devices(!q->queue_depth)
>> with blk-mq. We can improve this way in the future if we
>> have better approach.
>
> Measurements have shown that even with this patch series applied sequential
> I/O performance is still below that of the legacy block and SCSI layers. So
> this patch series is not the final solution. (See also John Garry's e-mail
> of October 10th - https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/10/401). I have been
> wondering what could be causing that performance difference. Maybe it's
> because requests can reside for a while in the hctx dispatch queue and hence
> are unvisible for the scheduler while in the hctx dispatch queue? Should we
> modify blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() such that it puts back requests that have
> not been accepted by .queue_rq() onto the scheduler queue(s) instead of to
> the hctx dispatch queue? If we would make that change, would it allow us to
> drop patch "blk-mq-sched: improve dispatching from sw queue"?

Yes, it's clear that even with the full series, we're not completely there
yet. We are closer, though, and I do want to close that gap up as much
as we can. I think everybody will be more motivated and have an easier time
getting the last bit of the way there, once we have a good foundation in.

It may be the reason that you hint at, if we do see a lot of requeueing
or BUSY in the test case. That would prematurely move requests from the
schedulers knowledge and into the hctx->dispatch holding area. It'd be
useful to have a standard SATA test run and see if we're missing merging
in that case (since merging is what it boils down to). If we are, then
it's not hctx->dispatch issues.

--
Jens Axboe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-12 17:37    [W:0.125 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site