linux-kernel - Re: Perfromance drop on SCSI hard disk

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1305850920.22968.1089.camel@debian>
Date:	Fri, 20 May 2011 08:22:00 +0800
From:	"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Cc:	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	"James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com" 
	<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Perfromance drop on SCSI hard disk

On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 02:27 +0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-05-19 10:26, Alex,Shi wrote:
> > 
> >> I will queue up the combined patch, it looks fine from here as well.
> >>
> > 
> > When I have some time to study Jens and shaohua's patch today. I find a
> > simpler way to resolved the re-enter issue on starved_list. Following
> > Jens' idea, we can just put the starved_list device into kblockd if it
> > come from __scsi_queue_insert(). 
> > It can resolve the re-enter issue and recover performance totally, and
> > need not a work_struct in every scsi_device. The logic/code also looks a
> > bit simpler. 
> > What's your opinion of this? 
> 
> Isn't this _identical_ to my original patch, with the added async run of
> the queue passed in (which is important, an oversight)?

Not exactly same. It bases on your patch, but added a bypass way for
starved_list device. If a starved_list device come from
__scsi_queue_insert(), that may caused by our talking recursion, kblockd
with take over the process.  Maybe you oversight this point in original
patch. :) 

The different part from yours is below:
---
static void __scsi_run_queue(struct request_queue *q, bool async)
 {
        struct scsi_device *sdev = q->queuedata;
        struct Scsi_Host *shost;
@@ -435,30 +437,35 @@ static void scsi_run_queue(struct request_queue
*q)
                                       &shost->starved_list);
                        continue;
                }
-
-               spin_unlock(shost->host_lock);
-               spin_lock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
-               __blk_run_queue(sdev->request_queue);
-               spin_unlock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
-               spin_lock(shost->host_lock);
+               if (async)
+                       blk_run_queue_async(sdev->request_queue);
+               else {
+                       spin_unlock(shost->host_lock);
+                       spin_lock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
+                       __blk_run_queue(sdev->request_queue);
+                       spin_unlock(sdev->request_queue->queue_lock);
+                       spin_lock(shost->host_lock);
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/