Message-ID: <CAJVOszCjjjx39GsdFtKAdwVRG0dJ0Frf4MKSQVHorA_qSZzR7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:00:16 -0500
From:   Shaun Tancheff <shaun.tancheff@...gate.com>
To:     Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com>
Cc:     Shaun Tancheff <shaun@...cheff.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...t.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Josh Bingaman <josh.bingaman@...gate.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] SCT Write Same / DSM Trim

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com> wrote:
> On 22 August 2016 at 15:04, Shaun Tancheff <shaun.tancheff@...gate.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 August 2016 at 08:31, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com> wrote:

> Since I have no experience with SCT Write Same at all, and neither do
> I own any spinning HDD at all, I cannot firmly suggest what to do. All
> I can suggest is: should we decrease it per sector size? Or would 2G
> per command still be too large to avoid timeout?

Timeout for WS is 120 seconds so we should be fine there.

The number to look for is the:
   Max. Sustained Transfer Rate OD (MB/s): 190 8TB (180 5TB)

Which means the above drives should complete a 2G write in
about 10 to 11 seconds.

If these were 4Kn drives and we allowed a 16G max then it
would be 80-90 seconds, assuming the write speed didn't
get any better.

So holding the maximum to around 2G is probably the best
overall, in my opinion.

-- 
Shaun Tancheff

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com> wrote:
> On 22 August 2016 at 15:04, Shaun Tancheff <shaun.tancheff@...gate.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 August 2016 at 08:31, Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> As mentioned before, as of the latest draft of ACS-4, nothing about a
>>>> larger payload size is mentioned. Conservatively speaking, it sort of
>>>
>>> *payload block size
>>>
>>>> means that we are allowing four 512-byte block payload on 4Kn device
>>>
>>> *eight 512-byte-block payload
>>>
>>>> regardless of the reported limit in the IDENTIFY DEVICE data. I am
>>>> really not sure if it's a good thing to do. Doesn't seem necessary
>>>> anyway, especially when our block layer does not support such a large
>>>> bio size (well, yet), so each request will end up using a payload of
>>>> two 512-byte blocks at max anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Also, it's IMHO better to do it in a seperate patch (series) after the
>>>> SCT Write Same support has entered libata's repo too, because this has
>>>> nothing to with it but TRIM translation. In case the future ACS
>>>> standards has clearer/better instruction on this, it will be easier
>>>> for us to revert/follow up too.
>>
>> I am certainly fine with dropping this patch as it is not critical to
>> the reset of the series.
>>
>> Nothing will break if we stick with the 512 byte fixed limit. This
>> is at most a prep patch for handling increased limits should
>> they be reported.
>>
>> All it really is doing is acknowledging that any write same
>> must have a payload of sector_size which can be something
>> larger than 512 bytes.
>
> Actually I am not sure if we should hard code the limit
> ata_format_dsm_trim_descr() / ata_set_lba_range_entries() at all. The
> current implementation (with or without your patch) seems redundant
> and unnecessary to me.
>
> All we need to do should be: making sure that the block limits VPD
> advertises a safe Maximum Write Same Length, and reject Write Same
> (16) commands that have "number of blocks" that exceeds the limit
> (which is what I introduced in commit 5c79097a28c2, "libata-scsi:
> reject WRITE SAME (16) with n_block that exceeds limit").
>
> In that case, we don't need to hard code the limit in the
> while-condition again; instead we should just make it end with the
> request size, since the accepted request could never be larger than
> the limit we advertise.
>
>>
>>>> And you'll need to fix the Block Limits VPD simulation
>>>> (ata_scsiop_inq_b0) too, so that it will advertise the Maximum Write
>>>> Same Length dynamically as per the logical sector size, otherwise your
>>>> effort will be completely in vain, even if our block layer is
>>>> overhauled in the future.
>>
>> Martin had earlier suggested that I leave the write same defaults
>> as is due to concerns with misbehaving hardware.
>
> It doesn't really apply in libata's anyway. SD_MAX_WS10_BLOCKS means
> nothing to ATA drives, except from coincidentally being the same value
> as ATA_MAX_SECTORS_LBA48 (which technically should have been 65536
> instead).
>
>>
>> I think your patch adjusting the reported limits is reasonable
>> enough. It seems to me we should have the hardware
>> report it's actual limits, for example, report what the spec
>> allows.
>
> As you mentioned yourself before, technically SCT Write Same does not
> have a limit. The only practical limit is the timeout in the SCSI
> layer, so the actual bytes being (over)written is probably our only
> concern.
>
> For the case of TRIM, devices do report a limit in their IDENTIFY
> DEVICE data. However, as Martin always said, it is not an always-safe
> piece of data for us to refer to, that's why we have been statically
> allowing only 1-block payload.
>
> Therefore, it seems convenient (and consistent) that we make SCT Write
> Same always use the same limit as TRIM, no matter if it is supported
> on a certain device. And to make sure the actual bytes being written /
> time required per command does not increase enormously as per the
> sector size, we decrease the limit accordingly. Certainly that's not
> necessary if 16G per command is fine on most devices.
>
> Also, does SCT Write Same commands that write 32M/256M per command
> make any sense? I mean would we benefit from such small SCT Write Same
> commands at all?
>
>>
>> Of course there are lots of reasons to limit the absolute
>> maximums.
>>
>> So in this case we are just enabling the limit to be
>> increased but not changing the current black-listing
>> that distrusts DSM Trim. Once we have 4Kn devices
>> to test then we can start white-listing and see if there
>> is an overall increase in performance.
>>
>>>> Please be noted that, since your haven't touched ata_scsiop_inq_b0 at
>>>> all, the reported Maximum Write Same Length will be:
>>>>
>>>> On device with TRIM support:
>>>> - 4194240 LOGICAL sector per request split / command
>>>> -- ~=2G on non-4Kn drives
>>>> -- ~=16G on non-4Kn drives
>>>>
>>>> On device without TRIM support:
>>>> - 0 --> SD_MAX_WS10_BLOCKS (65535) per request split / command
>>>> -- ~= 32M on non-4Kn drives
>>>> -- ~=256M on non-4Kn drives
>>>>
>>>> Even if we ignore the upper limit(s) of the block layer, do we want
>>>> such inconsistencies?
>>
>> Hmm. Overall I think it is still okay if a bit confusing.
>> It is possible that for devices which support SCT Write Same
>> and DSM TRIM will still Trim faster than they can Write Same,
>> However the internal implementation is opaque so I can't
>> say if Write Same is often implemented in terms of TRIM
>> or not. I mean that's how _I_ do it [Write 1 block and map
>> N blocks to it], But not every FTL will have come to the
>> same conclusion.
>
> Why would SCT Write Same be implemented in terms of TRIM? Neither
> would we need to care about that anyway. Considering we will unlikely
> allow multi-block payload TRIM, and we probably have no reason to
> touch the SCSI Write Same timeout, the only thing we need to consider
> is whether we want to decrease the advertised limit base on the
> typical SCT Write Same speed on traditional HDDs and the timeout,
> especially in the 4Kn case.
>
> Since I have no experience with SCT Write Same at all, and neither do
> I own any spinning HDD at all, I cannot firmly suggest what to do. All
> I can suggest is: should we decrease it per sector size? Or would 2G
> per command still be too large to avoid timeout?
>
>>
>> I also suspect that given the choice for most use casess that
>> TRIM is preferred over WS when TRIM supports returning
>> zeroed blocks.
>
> Well, for devices with discard_zeroes_data = 1, the block layer will
> not issue write same requests (see blkdev_issue_zeroout in
> block/blk-lib.c). However, libata only consider the RZAT support bit
> from a white list of devices (see ata_scsiop_read_cap in libata-scsi
> and the white list in libata-core).
>
>>
>> --
>> Shaun Tancheff



-- 
Shaun Tancheff

Powered by blists - more mailing lists