From: Ming Lei <[email protected]>
To: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave Chinner <[email protected]>,
Mikulas Patocka <[email protected]>,
Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Jooyung Han <[email protected]>,
Alasdair Kergon <[email protected]>,
Mike Snitzer <[email protected]>,
Heinz Mauelshagen <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] the dm-loop target
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:34:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z9k-JE8FmWKe0fm0@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:57:17AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 03:27:48PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Yes, NOWAIT may then add an incremental performance improvement on
> > top for optimal layout cases, but I'm still not yet convinced that
> > it is a generally applicable loop device optimisation that everyone
> > wants to always enable due to the potential for 100% NOWAIT
> > submission failure on any given loop device.....
NOWAIT failure can be avoided actually:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/[email protected]/
>
> Yes, I think this is a really good first step:
>
> 1) switch loop to use a per-command work_item unconditionally, which also
> has the nice effect that it cleans up the horrible mess of the
> per-blkcg workers. (note that this is what the nvmet file backend has
It could be worse to take per-command work, because IO handling crosses
all system wq worker contexts.
> always done with good result)
per-command work does burn lots of CPU unnecessarily, it isn't good for
use case of container, and it can not perform as well as NOWAIT.
> 2) look into NOWAIT submission, especially for reads this should be
> a clear winner and probaby done unconditionally. For writes it
> might be a bit of a tradeoff if we expect the writes to allocate
> a lot, so we might want some kind of tunable for it.
It is a winner for over-write too.
WRITE with allocation can be kept to submit from wq context, see my
patchset V2.
Thanks,
Ming
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-18 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <Z8zbYOkwSaOJKD1z@fedora>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
[not found] ` <[email protected]>
2025-03-11 10:43 ` [PATCH] the dm-loop target Ming Lei
2025-03-12 2:34 ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-12 6:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-12 8:26 ` Ming Lei
2025-03-13 1:36 ` Ming Lei
2025-03-13 16:36 ` Mikulas Patocka
2025-03-18 4:27 ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-18 7:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-03-18 9:34 ` Ming Lei [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=Z9k-JE8FmWKe0fm0@fedora \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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