linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block/mq-deadline: Speed up the dispatch of low-priority requests

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: <b653a431-997b-0d94-2823-779f877c314f@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 28 Aug 2021 09:59:53 +0800
From:   "Leizhen (ThunderTown)" <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block/mq-deadline: Speed up the dispatch of low-priority
 requests



On 2021/8/27 2:09, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/26/21 7:40 AM, Zhen Lei wrote:
>> lock protection needs to be added only in
>> dd_finish_request(), which is unlikely to cause significant performance
>> side effects.
> 
> Not sure the above is correct. Every new atomic instruction has a measurable
> performance overhead. But I guess in this case that overhead is smaller than
> the time needed to sum 128 per-CPU variables.
> 
>> Tested on my 128-core board with two ssd disks.
>> fio bs=4k rw=read iodepth=128 cpus_allowed=0-95 <others>
>> Before:
>> [183K/0/0 iops]
>> [172K/0/0 iops]
>>
>> After:
>> [258K/0/0 iops]
>> [258K/0/0 iops]
> 
> Nice work!
> 
>> Fixes: fb926032b320 ("block/mq-deadline: Prioritize high-priority requests")
> 
> Shouldn't the Fixes: tag be used only for patches that modify functionality?
> I'm not sure it is appropriate to use this tag for performance improvements.
> 
>>  struct deadline_data {
>> @@ -277,9 +278,9 @@ deadline_move_request(struct deadline_data *dd, struct dd_per_prio *per_prio,
>>  }
>>  
>>  /* Number of requests queued for a given priority level. */
>> -static u32 dd_queued(struct deadline_data *dd, enum dd_prio prio)
>> +static __always_inline u32 dd_queued(struct deadline_data *dd, enum dd_prio prio)
>>  {
>> -	return dd_sum(dd, inserted, prio) - dd_sum(dd, completed, prio);
>> +	return dd->per_prio[prio].nr_queued;
>>  }
> 
> Please leave out "__always_inline". Modern compilers are smart enough to
> inline this function without using the "inline" keyword.

Yes.

> 
>> @@ -711,6 +712,8 @@ static void dd_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq,
>>  
>>  	prio = ioprio_class_to_prio[ioprio_class];
>>  	dd_count(dd, inserted, prio);
>> +	per_prio = &dd->per_prio[prio];
>> +	per_prio->nr_queued++;
>>  
>>  	if (blk_mq_sched_try_insert_merge(q, rq, &free)) {
>>  		blk_mq_free_requests(&free);
> 
> I think the above is wrong - nr_queued should not be incremented if the
> request is merged into another request. Please move the code that increments
> nr_queued past the above if-statement.

So dd_count(dd, inserted, prio) needs to be moved behind "if-statement" as well?

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> .
>