Received: by 2002:a25:6193:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp3465963ybb; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:23:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vur8NM5T1OF6SUSt8iGtzewtNAXNmsyTFgMxJWF5Nxs0IBn73f0ONJ061nKX2qVlk8IKQq8 X-Received: by 2002:a9d:3423:: with SMTP id v32mr3785864otb.46.1584951807663; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:23:27 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1584951807; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=q2BHfCv2iihnAH+1pCkDskj71SDb7XWZk3RpyvvdjIjGAzhjYMejTqcisYitACYYvD Ipy2XeUZWbTu5+hl+/y6fz5WF+kiwVaZ4r8iXjY59yTZyVVXcOR59BSVJzyTf8Qwgde/ 5UpT4Uiq8XpjUrr98ZfoLTfViBu20wqBIzCwgKJ3/qiGegdu5+fP8NOEQLwiqP4NiGny WesNmtq3wpRM6rrYs6o5IGcxJQuTIH9m1y870qJWhfPF52Y1glRxvAFTRaStL+980mMj z1I53jPn277imKaBFVwiDkyNwMhT0cndNbeEiDnd/C+55BbTMu4wj11vroJVsMBlb4zS nQ9Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=jKAra/BffbkTuO4jV8cxVspIA6xP8ycxw39bj7kkLUw=; b=JMLvUY55LJSZw6JIgF/gQSDh8pFECGXiz/zCrbgKdYP0UxpwYEwxs7i0oO8iObZ7m7 fBQ9yBcbAeHE5QRXeKf8dXLUF5/B5MQtSQyBL5XDWGC/g0NF3ZsiRKzQbOHvLgCuhiW0 R6pLSTBAWXsoPByejQDsbG4Iz4KlM8/80VzYXScExylTzeGheGd0VX1Lh1KFiJhCh+0b jo0deaS4yhTXE+0b5SM722QFwe3QHJMAfzhQusBh27GqB1EFElGbAwDayksJdsYxMYC+ LYBXz+aomzEc8DzqsF2vB9J23SArXC71PzbQ36f32FelR+snF6d0zCgH6qOM8ZjEWjAv 6fgA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=Sss3FLpe; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id i21si1022771otc.183.2020.03.23.01.23.14; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:23:27 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=Sss3FLpe; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727546AbgCWIWz (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 23 Mar 2020 04:22:55 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f67.google.com ([209.85.167.67]:38401 "EHLO mail-lf1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727500AbgCWIWy (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2020 04:22:54 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f67.google.com with SMTP id c5so4018179lfp.5; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:22:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jKAra/BffbkTuO4jV8cxVspIA6xP8ycxw39bj7kkLUw=; b=Sss3FLpe8kbPXnAEh9a3VBG1dwhcpTQ0WUOvUvlbl82OM4GLpwDpsC5Hd0KyfhmIfX 3YaoPKfUgaSTH2ZklzxAHFGNb5+jnoS0zHlczlEeSU1rvUf3K39D1/2vITBb2NB+l3L8 BvZ+CQMZ44r942QWu5lNcFnvOpHHjAMBLnawAp1AxuzLTAWQAkE+UM0M2/ObWRfua5a0 QNLEov01H6uLL9d4i4OS0g9XYZIcn1rpMcNQtlWiYsVEhPCWGg668XggLdfwq2rFeNDK okgz3ecZfaTPDH/S1XmjeEE4kN7Rz8nKgQ09xkHcmp+rzWv+EGw8rbVoI72494ngr623 ZURA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jKAra/BffbkTuO4jV8cxVspIA6xP8ycxw39bj7kkLUw=; b=Lnl+xgXDA6oO3v6GY244yPqR0OoL2PEQ+PJnZaIqqgtr4kqvIsqbbQUYZfg4tQA52g lPvNHUjN0dDNaU4din4H004CG/YSKQGUMeGjRdp9oqg1pmqBBpxxA20XGEhEKfr4wOi3 XrAS3lYM5nn43irD+2SjDYszc4QEMkMy/k1/uWOOvOzlPT9WTItImhNH+sbDHtpsfxJj nVdLoe2JVkuoER5On5RsiEanYw49ESKWsfdchBdrOlUdEongLRiJKfNqsRYTS194Oa9U 6g+yfmGoNyTrx/cnNbcvZ0MM9ElkvHOATeOryGhAR3cX7lB+MytVBvlP/ziZlfgnVWUb ZcHg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2hRBtBckTXKrgwpgEtgW8KsT2E3bSH9UOCL2dNqMPYyDGlnfDe o4gKhUrJC1LXYT5eotwm3k24TPPqi6wjGtNAea8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:202d:: with SMTP id s13mr8054446lfs.19.1584951770373; Mon, 23 Mar 2020 01:22:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200318100123.GA27531@ming.t460p> <20200323034432.GA27507@ming.t460p> <20200323072640.GA4767@ming.t460p> In-Reply-To: <20200323072640.GA4767@ming.t460p> From: Baolin Wang Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:22:38 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 2/8] block: Allow sending a batch of requests from the scheduler to hardware To: Ming Lei Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, Paolo Valente , Ulf Hansson , Adrian Hunter , Arnd Bergmann , Linus Walleij , Orson Zhai , Chunyan Zhang , linux-mmc , linux-block , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:27 PM Ming Lei wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 01:36:34PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 11:44 AM Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 06:27:41PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > Hi Ming, > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:26 PM Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Ming, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:01 PM Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 06:01:19PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > > > > > > > As we know, some SD/MMC host controllers can support packed request, > > > > > > > that means we can package several requests to host controller at one > > > > > > > time to improve performence. So the hardware driver expects the blk-mq > > > > > > > can dispatch a batch of requests at one time, and driver can use bd.last > > > > > > > to indicate if it is the last request in the batch to help to combine > > > > > > > requests as much as possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus we should add batch requests setting from the block driver to tell > > > > > > > the scheduler how many requests can be dispatched in a batch, as well > > > > > > > as changing the scheduler to dispatch more than one request if setting > > > > > > > the maximum batch requests number. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel this batch dispatch style is more complicated, and some other > > > > > > drivers(virtio blk/scsi) still may get benefit if we can pass real 'last' flag in > > > > > > .queue_rq(). > > > > > > > > > > > > So what about the following way by extending .commit_rqs() to this usage? > > > > > > And you can do whatever batch processing in .commit_rqs() which will be > > > > > > guaranteed to be called if BLK_MQ_F_FORCE_COMMIT_RQS is set by driver. > > > > > > > > > > I'm very appreciated for your good suggestion, which is much simpler than mine. > > > > > It seems to solve my problem, and I will try it on my platform to see > > > > > if it can work and give you the feadback. Thanks again. > > > > > > > > I tried your approach on my platform, but met some problems, see below. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c > > > > > > index 856356b1619e..cd2bbe56f83f 100644 > > > > > > --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c > > > > > > +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c > > > > > > @@ -85,11 +85,12 @@ void blk_mq_sched_restart(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > * its queue by itself in its completion handler, so we don't need to > > > > > > * restart queue if .get_budget() returns BLK_STS_NO_RESOURCE. > > > > > > */ > > > > > > -static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > +static bool blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > { > > > > > > struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue; > > > > > > struct elevator_queue *e = q->elevator; > > > > > > LIST_HEAD(rq_list); > > > > > > + bool ret = false; > > > > > > > > > > > > do { > > > > > > struct request *rq; > > > > > > @@ -112,7 +113,10 @@ static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > * in blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(). > > > > > > */ > > > > > > list_add(&rq->queuelist, &rq_list); > > > > > > - } while (blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, true)); > > > > > > + ret = blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, true); > > > > > > + } while (ret); > > > > > > + > > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > static struct blk_mq_ctx *blk_mq_next_ctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, > > > > > > @@ -131,11 +135,12 @@ static struct blk_mq_ctx *blk_mq_next_ctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, > > > > > > * its queue by itself in its completion handler, so we don't need to > > > > > > * restart queue if .get_budget() returns BLK_STS_NO_RESOURCE. > > > > > > */ > > > > > > -static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > +static bool blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > { > > > > > > struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue; > > > > > > LIST_HEAD(rq_list); > > > > > > struct blk_mq_ctx *ctx = READ_ONCE(hctx->dispatch_from); > > > > > > + bool ret = false; > > > > > > > > > > > > do { > > > > > > struct request *rq; > > > > > > @@ -161,10 +166,12 @@ static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > > > > > > > /* round robin for fair dispatch */ > > > > > > ctx = blk_mq_next_ctx(hctx, rq->mq_ctx); > > > > > > - > > > > > > - } while (blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, true)); > > > > > > + ret = blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, true); > > > > > > + } while (ret); > > > > > > > > > > > > WRITE_ONCE(hctx->dispatch_from, ctx); > > > > > > + > > > > > > + return ret; > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > void blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > @@ -173,6 +180,7 @@ void blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > struct elevator_queue *e = q->elevator; > > > > > > const bool has_sched_dispatch = e && e->type->ops.dispatch_request; > > > > > > LIST_HEAD(rq_list); > > > > > > + bool dispatch_ret; > > > > > > > > > > > > /* RCU or SRCU read lock is needed before checking quiesced flag */ > > > > > > if (unlikely(blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx) || blk_queue_quiesced(q))) > > > > > > @@ -206,20 +214,26 @@ void blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > > > > > */ > > > > > > if (!list_empty(&rq_list)) { > > > > > > blk_mq_sched_mark_restart_hctx(hctx); > > > > > > - if (blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, false)) { > > > > > > + dispatch_ret = blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, false); > > > > > > + if (dispatch_ret) { > > > > > > if (has_sched_dispatch) > > > > > > - blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx); > > > > > > + dispatch_ret = blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx); > > > > > > > > If we dispatched a request successfully by blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(), > > > > and got dispatch_ret = true now. Then we will try to dispatch more > > > > reuqests from scheduler by blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(), but if now no > > > > more requests in scheduler, then we will got dispatch_ret = false. In > > > > > > 'dispatch_ret' always holds result of the last blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(). > > > When any one request has been dispatched successfully, 'dispatch_ret' > > > is true. New request is always added to list before calling > > > blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(), so once blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() returns > > > false, it means that .commit_rqs() has been called. > > > > Not really, if no requests int the IO cheduler, we will break the loop > > in blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() and return false without calling > > .commit_rqs(). > > If there isn't any request to dispatch, false is returned. Otherwise, > always return the return value of last 'blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list'. > > > > > So in this case, blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() will return 'false', which > > overlapped the return value of 'true' from blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(), > > and did not call .commit_rqs(). Then the IO processing will be stuck. > > See below. > > > > > static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > > { > > struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue; > > struct elevator_queue *e = q->elevator; > > LIST_HEAD(rq_list); > > bool ret = false; > > The above initialization is just done once. > > > > > do { > > struct request *rq; > > > > if (e->type->ops.has_work && !e->type->ops.has_work(hctx)) > > break; > > > > ....... > ret = blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, list, ...); > > list includes one request, so blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() won't return > false in case of no request in list. > > > } while (ret); > > > > return ret; > > 'ret' is always updated by return value of last blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() > if at least one request is dispatched. So if it becomes false, the loop > breaks, that means .commit_rqs() has been called cause 'list' does > include one request for blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(). Otherwise, true is > still returned. Sorry for my confusing description, let me try again to describe the problem. When I try to mount the block device, I got the IO stuck with your patch, and I did some debugging. I found we missed calling commit_rqs() for one case: void blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) @@ -173,6 +180,7 @@ void blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) struct elevator_queue *e = q->elevator; const bool has_sched_dispatch = e && e->type->ops.dispatch_request; LIST_HEAD(rq_list); + bool dispatch_ret; /* RCU or SRCU read lock is needed before checking quiesced flag */ if (unlikely(blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx) || blk_queue_quiesced(q))) @@ -206,20 +214,26 @@ void blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) */ if (!list_empty(&rq_list)) { blk_mq_sched_mark_restart_hctx(hctx); - if (blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, false)) { + dispatch_ret = blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, false); Suppose we dispatch one request to block driver, and return 'true' here. + if (dispatch_ret) { if (has_sched_dispatch) - blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx); + dispatch_ret = blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx); Then we will continue to try to dispatch more requests from IO scheduler, but if there are no requests in IO scheduler now, it will return 'false' here, and set dispatch_ret as false. else - blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(hctx); + dispatch_ret = blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(hctx); } } else if (has_sched_dispatch) { - blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx); + dispatch_ret = blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx); } else if (hctx->dispatch_busy) { /* dequeue request one by one from sw queue if queue is busy */ - blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(hctx); + dispatch_ret = blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(hctx); } else { blk_mq_flush_busy_ctxs(hctx, &rq_list); - blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, false); + dispatch_ret = blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, false); + } + + if (dispatch_ret) { So in this case, we will not call commit_rqs() to kick block driver due to dispatch_ret == false, though we've dispatched one request to block driver by blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(), which will cause the IO stuck. + if (hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_FORCE_COMMIT_RQS) + hctx->queue->mq_ops->commit_rqs(hctx); } } -- Baolin Wang