linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] block: Extand commit

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:   Sun, 10 May 2020 00:44:53 -0700
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@...il.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@...il.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] block: Extand commit_rqs() to do batch
 processing


>>>> You're mostly correct. This is exactly why an I/O scheduler may be
>>>> applicable here IMO. Mostly because I/O schedulers tend to optimize for
>>>> something specific and always present tradeoffs. Users need to
>>>> understand what they are optimizing for.
>>>>
>>>> Hence I'd say this functionality can definitely be available to an I/O
>>>> scheduler should one exist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess it is just that there can be multiple requests available from
>>> scheduler queue. Actually it can be so for other non-nvme drivers in
>>> case of none, such as SCSI.
>>>
>>> Another way is to use one per-task list(such as plug list) to hold the
>>> requests for dispatch, then every drivers may see real .last flag, so they
>>> may get chance for optimizing batch queuing. I will think about the
>>> idea further and see if it is really doable.
>>
>> How about my RFC v1 patch set[1], which allows dispatching more than
>> one request from the scheduler to support batch requests?
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1210034/
>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1210035/
> 
> Basically, my idea is to dequeue request one by one, and for each
> dequeued request:
> 
> - we try to get a budget and driver tag, if both succeed, add the
> request to one per-task list which can be stored in stack variable,
> then continue to dequeue more request
> 
> - if either budget or driver tag can't be allocated for this request,
> marks the last request in the per-task list as .last, and send the
> batching requests stored in the list to LLD
> 
> - when queueing batching requests to LLD, if one request isn't queued
> to driver successfully, calling .commit_rqs() like before, meantime
> adding the remained requests in the per-task list back to scheduler
> queue or hctx->dispatch.

Sounds good to me.

> One issue is that this way might degrade sequential IO performance if
> the LLD just tells queue busy to blk-mq via return value of .queue_rq(),
> so I guess we still may need one flag, such as BLK_MQ_F_BATCHING_SUBMISSION.

Why is that degrading sequential I/O performance? because the specific
device will do better without batching submissions? If so, the driver
is not obligated to respect the bd->last/.commit_rqs, so if that is the
case, it should just ignore it.