linux-kernel - Re: blk-mq: takes hours for scsi scanning finish when thousands of LUNs

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]

Date:	Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:15:10 +0800
From:	jason <zhangqing.luo@...cle.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:	axboe@...nel.dk, Guru Anbalagane <guru.anbalagane@...cle.com>,
	Feng Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: blk-mq: takes hours for scsi scanning finish when thousands of
 LUNs



On Thursday, October 22, 2015 04:47 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 07:40:13AM -0700, Zhangqing Luo wrote:
> ....
> > So every time blk_mq_freeze_queue_start, it runs in this way
> >
> > blk_mq_freeze_queue_start
> > ->percpu_ref_kill->percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm
> > ->__percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic
> > ->call_rcu_sched(&ref->rcu,percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu)
> >
> > and blk_mq_freeze_queue_wait blocks on queue->mq_usage_counter
> > as it is not zero, and wake up by percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu
> > after a grace period
> >
> >
> > My question here is why should we change ref to PERCPU at blk_mq_finish_init?
> > because of this changing, delay appears.
>
> Because percpu operation is way cheaper than atomic ones and we want
> to optimize hot paths (request issue and completion) over cold paths
> (init and config changes).  That's the whole point of percpu
> refcnting.
>
> The reason why percpu ref starts in atomic mode is to avoid expensive
> percpu freezing if the queue is created and abandoned in quick
> succession as SCSI does during LUN scanning.  If percpu freezing is
> happening during that, the right solution is moving finish_init to
> late enough point so that percpu switching happens only after it's
> known that the queue won't be abandoned.
>
> Thanks.
>
I agree with the optimizing hot paths by cheaper percpu operation,
but how much does it affect the performance?

as you know the switching causes delay, when the the LUN  number is increasing
the delay is becoming higher, so do you have any idea
about the problem?

/Thanks
--
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/