public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: JeffleXu <[email protected]>
To: Mikulas Patocka <[email protected]>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <[email protected]>,
	Heinz Mauelshagen <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 4/4] dm: support I/O polling
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:57:55 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2103030505460.29593@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>



On 3/3/21 6:09 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, JeffleXu wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 3/3/21 3:05 AM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>
>>> Support I/O polling if submit_bio_noacct_mq_direct returned non-empty
>>> cookie.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/md/dm.c |    5 +++++
>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/md/dm.c	2021-03-02 19:26:34.000000000 +0100
>>> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm.c	2021-03-02 19:26:34.000000000 +0100
>>> @@ -1682,6 +1682,11 @@ static void __split_and_process_bio(stru
>>>  		}
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> +	if (ci.poll_cookie != BLK_QC_T_NONE) {
>>> +		while (atomic_read(&ci.io->io_count) > 1 &&
>>> +		       blk_poll(ci.poll_queue, ci.poll_cookie, true)) ;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>>  	/* drop the extra reference count */
>>>  	dec_pending(ci.io, errno_to_blk_status(error));
>>>  }
>>
>> It seems that the general idea of your design is to
>> 1) submit *one* split bio
>> 2) blk_poll(), waiting the previously submitted split bio complets
> 
> No, I submit all the bios and poll for the last one.
> 
>> and then submit next split bio, repeating the above process. I'm afraid
>> the performance may be an issue here, since the batch every time
>> blk_poll() reaps may decrease.
> 
> Could you benchmark it?
> 

I will once I finished some other issues.


>> Besides, the submitting routine and polling routine is bound together
>> here, i.e., polling is always synchronous.
> 
> __split_and_process_bio calls __split_and_process_non_flush in a loop

I also noticed that you sent this patch.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/dm-devel/patch/alpine.LRH.2.02.2103010457510.631@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com/

I agree with you that this while() loop here is unnecessary. And thus
there's no loop calling __split_and_process_non_flush() in
__split_and_process_bio().


> __split_and_process_non_flush records the poll cookie in ci.poll_cookie. 
> When we processed all the bios, we poll for the last cookie here:
> 
>         if (ci.poll_cookie != BLK_QC_T_NONE) {
>                 while (atomic_read(&ci.io->io_count) > 1 &&
>                        blk_poll(ci.poll_queue, ci.poll_cookie, true)) ;
>         }

So what will happen if one bio submitted to dm device crosses the device
boundary among several target devices (e.g., dm-stripe)? Please refer
the following call graph.

```
submit_bio
  __submit_bio_noacct
    disk->fops->submit_bio(), calling into __split_and_process_bio(),
call __split_and_process_non_flush() once, submitting the *first* split bio
    disk->fops->submit_bio(), calling into __split_and_process_bio(),
call __split_and_process_non_flush() once, submitting the *second* split bio
    ...
```


So the loop is in __submit_bio_noacct(), rather than
__split_and_process_bio(). Your design will send the first split bio,
and then poll on this split bio, then send the next split bio, polling
on this, go on and on...

-- 
Thanks,
Jeffle

  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-04  2:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-02 19:05 [PATCH 4/4] dm: support I/O polling Mikulas Patocka
2021-03-03  2:53 ` [dm-devel] " JeffleXu
2021-03-03 10:09   ` Mikulas Patocka
2021-03-04  2:57     ` JeffleXu [this message]
2021-03-04 10:09       ` Mikulas Patocka
2021-03-05 18:21         ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-04 15:01     ` Jeff Moyer
2021-03-04 15:11       ` Mike Snitzer
2021-03-04 15:12       ` [dm-devel] " Mikulas Patocka
2021-03-05  9:52     ` JeffleXu
2021-03-05 17:46       ` Heinz Mauelshagen
2021-03-05 17:56         ` Heinz Mauelshagen
2021-03-05 18:09           ` Mike Snitzer
2021-03-05 18:19             ` [dm-devel] " Heinz Mauelshagen
2021-03-08  3:54           ` JeffleXu
2021-03-08  3:55             ` Jens Axboe
2021-03-09 11:42             ` Heinz Mauelshagen

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=f9dd41f1-7a4c-5901-c099-dca08c4e6d65@linux.alibaba.com \
    [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