linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V14 13/24] mmc: block: Add blk-mq support

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: <CAPDyKFpnKXyhZ6GQymoLzcueUwzPLMP9hC+RuqrhCq3wEByF6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:36:53 +0100
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bough Chen <haibo.chen@....com>,
        Alex Lemberg <alex.lemberg@...disk.com>,
        Mateusz Nowak <mateusz.nowak@...el.com>,
        Yuliy Izrailov <Yuliy.Izrailov@...disk.com>,
        Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
        Dong Aisheng <dongas86@...il.com>,
        Das Asutosh <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@...il.com>,
        Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>,
        Harjani Ritesh <riteshh@...eaurora.org>,
        Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V14 13/24] mmc: block: Add blk-mq support

+ Jens, Paolo

[...]

>>> +static int mmc_blk_mq_issue_rw_rq(struct mmc_queue *mq,
>>> +                                 struct request *req)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct mmc_queue_req *mqrq = req_to_mmc_queue_req(req);
>>> +       struct mmc_host *host = mq->card->host;
>>> +       struct request *prev_req = NULL;
>>> +       int err = 0;
>>> +
>>> +       mmc_blk_rw_rq_prep(mqrq, mq->card, 0, mq);
>>> +
>>> +       mqrq->brq.mrq.done = mmc_blk_mq_req_done;
>>> +
>>> +       mmc_pre_req(host, &mqrq->brq.mrq);
>>
>> To be honest, using a queue_depth of 64, puzzles me! According to my
>> understanding we should use a queue_depth of 2, in case the host
>> implements the ->pre|post_req() callbacks, else we should set it to 1.
>>
>> Although I may be missing some information about how to really use
>> this, because for example UBI (mtd) also uses 64 as queue depth!?
>>
>> My interpretation of the queue_depth is that the blkmq layer will use
>> it to understand the maximum number of request a block device are able
>> to operate on simultaneously (when having one HW queue), thus the
>> number of outstanding dispatched requests for the block evice driver,
>> may be as close as possible to the queue_depth, but never above. I may
>> be totally wrong about this. :-)
>
> For blk-mq, the queue_depth also defines the default nr_requests, which will
> be 2 times the queue_depth if there is an elevator.  The old nr_requests was
> 128, so setting 64 gives the same nr_requests as before.
>
> Otherwise the queue_depth is the size of the tag set.
>
> A very low queue_depth might be a problem for I/O schedulers like kyber
> which seems to try to limit the number of tags available for asynchronous
> requests.

You are probably right about this, but it makes no sense to me.

I don't understand why the queue_depth, stated by storage device, has
to do with the number of requests being available for I/O scheduling.

I have looped in Jens and Paolo (BFQ), perhaps they can help to spread
some more light on this.

>
>>
>> Anyway, then if using a queue_depth of 64, how will you make sure that
>> you not end up having > 1 requests being prepared at the same time
>> (not counting the one that may be in transfer)?
>
> We are currently single-threaded since every request goes through
> hctx->run_work when BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING and nr_hw_queues == 1.  It might be
> worth adding a mutex to ensure that never changes.
>
> This point also answers some of the questions below, since there can be no
> parallel dispatches.
>

Yeah it does, again thanks!

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe