| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAOi1vP-2dqn_FmgCK-1O6M10FHGpEPVxkAKs6SMoUB_kU9X5TQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:37:57 +0300
From: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
To: juncheng bai <baijuncheng@...tedstack.com>
Cc: idryomov@...hat.com, Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>,
Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@...tank.com>,
Guangliang Zhao <lucienchao@...il.com>, jeff@...zik.org,
yehuda@...newdream.net, Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>,
elder@...tank.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ceph Development <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] storage:rbd: make the size of request is equal to
the, size of the object
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 6:28 AM, juncheng bai
<baijuncheng@...tedstack.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2015/6/15 22:27, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 4:23 PM, juncheng bai
>> <baijuncheng@...tedstack.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2015/6/15 21:03, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 2:18 PM, juncheng bai
>>>> <baijuncheng@...tedstack.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From 6213215bd19926d1063d4e01a248107dab8a899b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>>>>> 2001
>>>>> From: juncheng bai <baijuncheng@...tedstack.com>
>>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:34:00 +0800
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] storage:rbd: make the size of request is equal to the
>>>>> size of the object
>>>>>
>>>>> ensures that the merged size of request can achieve the size of
>>>>> the object.
>>>>> when merge a bio to request or merge a request to request, the
>>>>> sum of the segment number of the current request and the segment
>>>>> number of the bio is not greater than the max segments of the request,
>>>>> so the max size of request is 512k if the max segments of request is
>>>>> BLK_MAX_SEGMENTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: juncheng bai <baijuncheng@...tedstack.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/block/rbd.c | 2 ++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
>>>>> index 0a54c58..dec6045 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
>>>>> @@ -3757,6 +3757,8 @@ static int rbd_init_disk(struct rbd_device
>>>>> *rbd_dev)
>>>>> segment_size = rbd_obj_bytes(&rbd_dev->header);
>>>>> blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, segment_size / SECTOR_SIZE);
>>>>> blk_queue_max_segment_size(q, segment_size);
>>>>> + if (segment_size > BLK_MAX_SEGMENTS * PAGE_SIZE)
>>>>> + blk_queue_max_segments(q, segment_size / PAGE_SIZE);
>>>>> blk_queue_io_min(q, segment_size);
>>>>> blk_queue_io_opt(q, segment_size);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I made a similar patch on Friday, investigating blk-mq plugging issue
>>>> reported by Nick. My patch sets it to BIO_MAX_PAGES unconditionally -
>>>> AFAIU there is no point in setting to anything bigger since the bios
>>>> will be clipped to that number of vecs. Given that BIO_MAX_PAGES is
>>>> 256, this gives is 1M direct I/Os.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi. For signal bio, the max number of bio_vec is BIO_MAX_PAGES, but a
>>> request can be merged from multiple bios. We can see the below function:
>>> ll_back_merge_fn, ll_front_merge_fn and etc.
>>> And I test in kernel 3.18 use this patch, and do:
>>> echo 4096 > /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb
>>> We use systemtap to trace the request size, It is upto 4M.
>>
>>
>> Kernel 3.18 is pre rbd blk-mq transition, which happened in 4.0. You
>> should test whatever patches you have with at least 4.0.
>>
>> Putting that aside, I must be missing something. You'll get 4M
>> requests on 3.18 both with your patch and without it, the only
>> difference would be the size of bios being merged - 512k vs 1M. Can
>> you describe your test workload and provide before and after traces?
>>
> Hi. I update kernel version to 4.0.5. The test information as shown below:
> The base information:
> 03:28:13-root@...ver-186:~$uname -r
> 4.0.5
>
> My simple systemtap script:
> probe module("rbd").function("rbd_img_request_create")
> {
> printf("offset:%lu length:%lu\n", ulong_arg(2), ulong_arg(3));
> }
>
> I use dd to execute the test case:
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rbd0 bs=4M count=1 oflag=direct
>
> Case one: Without patch
> 03:30:23-root@...ver-186:~$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb
> 4096
> 03:30:35-root@...ver-186:~$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_segments
> 128
>
> The output of systemtap for nornal data:
> offset:0 length:524288
> offset:524288 length:524288
> offset:1048576 length:524288
> offset:1572864 length:524288
> offset:2097152 length:524288
> offset:2621440 length:524288
> offset:3145728 length:524288
> offset:3670016 length:524288
>
> Case two:With patch
> cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb
> 4096
> 03:49:14-root@...ver-186:linux-4.0.5$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/max_segments
> 1024
> The output of systemtap for nornal data:
> offset:0 length:1048576
> offset:1048576 length:1048576
> offset:2097152 length:1048576
> offset:3145728 length:1048576
>
> According to the test, you are right.
> Because the blk-mq doesn't use any scheduling policy.
> 03:52:13-root@...ver-186:linux-4.0.5$cat /sys/block/rbd0/queue/scheduler
> none
>
> In previous versions of the kernel 4.0, the rbd use the defualt
> scheduler:cfq
>
> So, I think that the blk-mq need to do more?
There is no scheduler support in blk-mq as of now but your numbers
don't have anything to do with that. The current behaviour is a result
of a bug in blk-mq. It's fixed by [1], if you apply it you should see
4M requests with your stap script.
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1941750
Thanks,
Ilya
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists