[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151021161947.GA5212@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 12:19:47 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Ming Lin <mlin@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Dongsu Park <dpark@...teo.net>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Ming Lin <ming.l@....samsung.com>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/11] block: remove split code in
blkdev_issue_{discard,write_same}
On Wed, Oct 21 2015 at 12:02pm -0400,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14 2015 at 9:27am -0400,
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:44:11AM -0700, Ming Lin wrote:
> > > I just did a quick test with a Samsung 900G NVMe device.
> > > mkfs.xfs is OK on 4.3-rc5.
> > >
> > > What's your device model? I may find a similar one to try.
> >
> > This is a HGST Ultrastar SN100
> >
> > Analsys and tentativ fix below:
> >
> > blktrace for before the commit:
> >
> > 259,0 1 2 0.000002543 2394 G D 0 + 8388607 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 1 3 0.000008230 2394 I D 0 + 8388607 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 1 4 0.000031090 207 D D 0 + 8388607 [kworker/1:1H]
> > 259,0 1 5 0.000044869 2394 Q D 8388607 + 8388607 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 1 6 0.000045992 2394 G D 8388607 + 8388607 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 1 7 0.000049559 2394 I D 8388607 + 8388607 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 1 8 0.000061551 207 D D 8388607 + 8388607 [kworker/1:1H]
> >
> > .. and so on.
> >
> > blktrace with the commit:
> >
> > 259,0 2 1 0.000000000 1228 Q D 0 + 4194304 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 2 2 0.000002543 1228 G D 0 + 4194304 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 2 3 0.000010080 1228 I D 0 + 4194304 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 2 4 0.000082187 267 D D 0 + 4194304 [kworker/2:1H]
> > 259,0 2 5 0.000224869 1228 Q D 4194304 + 4194304 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 2 6 0.000225835 1228 G D 4194304 + 4194304 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 2 7 0.000229457 1228 I D 4194304 + 4194304 [mkfs.xfs]
> > 259,0 2 8 0.000238507 267 D D 4194304 + 4194304 [kworker/2:1H]
> >
> > So discards are smaller, but better aligned. Now if I tweak a single
> > line in blk-lib.c to be able to use all of bi_size I get the old I/O
> > pattern back and everything works fine again:
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
> > index bd40292..65b61dc 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-lib.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-lib.c
> > @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects, MAX_BIO_SECTORS);
> > + req_sects = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects, UINT_MAX >> 9);
> > end_sect = sector + req_sects;
> >
> > bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = sector;
>
> Can we change UINT_MAX >> 9 to rounddown to the first factor of
> minimum_io_size?
>
> That should work for all devices and for dm-thinp (and dm-cache) in
> particular will ensure that all discards that are issued will be a
> multiple of the underlying device's blocksize.
Jeff Moyer pointed out having req_sects be a factor of
discard_granularity makes more sense. And I agree. Same difference in
the end (since dm-thinp sets discard_granularity to the thinp
blocksize).
--
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