[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9dd771bb-9e45-ecd2-d8e4-93c6e9cb9b59@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 12:23:54 +0200
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/13] blk-mq: Use shared tags for shared sbitmap
support
On 9/24/21 10:28 AM, John Garry wrote:
> Currently we use separate sbitmap pairs and active_queues atomic_t for
> shared sbitmap support.
>
> However a full sets of static requests are used per HW queue, which is
> quite wasteful, considering that the total number of requests usable at
> any given time across all HW queues is limited by the shared sbitmap depth.
>
> As such, it is considerably more memory efficient in the case of shared
> sbitmap to allocate a set of static rqs per tag set or request queue, and
> not per HW queue.
>
> So replace the sbitmap pairs and active_queues atomic_t with a shared
> tags per tagset and request queue, which will hold a set of shared static
> rqs.
>
> Since there is now no valid HW queue index to be passed to the blk_mq_ops
> .init and .exit_request callbacks, pass an invalid index token. This
> changes the semantics of the APIs, such that the callback would need to
> validate the HW queue index before using it. Currently no user of shared
> sbitmap actually uses the HW queue index (as would be expected).
>
> Continue to use term "shared sbitmap" for now, as the meaning is known.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
> ---
> block/blk-mq-sched.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> block/blk-mq-tag.c | 61 ++++++++++------------------
> block/blk-mq-tag.h | 6 +--
> block/blk-mq.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> block/blk-mq.h | 5 ++-
> include/linux/blk-mq.h | 15 ++++---
> include/linux/blkdev.h | 3 +-
> 7 files changed, 125 insertions(+), 138 deletions(-)
>
The overall idea to keep the full request allocation per queue was to
ensure memory locality for the requests themselves.
When moving to a shared request structure we obviously loose that feature.
But I'm not sure if that matters here; the performance impact might be
too small to be measurable, seeing that we'll be most likely bound by
hardware latencies anyway.
Nevertheless: have you tested for performance regressions with this
patchset?
I'm especially thinking of Kashyaps high-IOPS megaraid setup; if there
is a performance impact that'll be likely scenario where we can measure it.
But even if there is a performance impact this patchset might be
worthwhile, seeing that it'll reduce the memory footprint massively.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@...e.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists