> From: Dexuan Cui > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:41 > To: 'Jens Axboe' <axboe@xxxxxx>; Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-block > <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; > Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>; Keith Busch > <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>; Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>; Mike Christie > <mchristi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>; > Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx>; Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; > Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap > > > From: Jens Axboe [mailto:axboe@xxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 10:31 > > To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; linux-block > <linux- > > block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Dexuan > Cui > > <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>; Keith > Busch > > <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>; Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>; Mike Christie > > <mchristi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Martin K. Petersen > <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@xxxxxxx>; Dan Williams > <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>; > > Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@xxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: loose check on sg gap > > > > On 12/19/2016 07:07 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On 12/17/2016 03:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > > >>> If the last bvec of the 1st bio and the 1st bvec of the next > > >>> bio are contineous physically, and the latter can be merged > > >>> to last segment of the 1st bio, we should think they don't > > >>> violate sg gap(or virt boundary) limit. > > >>> > > >>> Both Vitaly and Dexuan reported lots of unmergeable small bios > > >>> are observed when running mkfs on Hyper-V virtual storage, and > > >>> performance becomes quite low, so this patch is figured out for > > >>> fixing the performance issue. > > >>> > > >>> The same issue should exist on NVMe too sine it sets virt boundary > too. > > >> > > >> It looks pretty reasonable to me. I'll queue it up for some testing, > > >> changes like this always make me a little nervous. > > > > > > Understood. > > > > > > But given it is still in early stage of 4.10 cycle, seems fine to expose > > > it now, and we should have enough time to fix it if there might be > > > regressions. > > > > > > BTW, it passes my xfstest(ext4) over sata/NVMe. > > > > It's been fine here in testing, too. I'm not worried about performance > > regressions, those we can always fix. Merging makes me worried about > > corruption, and those regressions are much worse. > > > > Any reason we need to rush this? I'd be more comfortable pushing this to > > 4.11, unless there are strong reasons this should make 4.10. > > > > -- > > Jens Axboe > > Hi Jens, > > As far as I know, the patch is important to popular Linux distros, > e.g. at least Ubuntu 14.04.5, 16.x and RHEL 7.3, when they run on > Hyper-V/Azure, because they can suffer from a pretty bad > throughput/latency > in some cases, e.g. mkfs.ext4 for a 100GB partition can take 8 minutes, but > with the patch, it only takes 1 second. > > -- Dexuan Hi Ming, Jens, Did you find any issue later when testing with the patch? May I know if it's possible to have it in 4.10 considering the above impact? Is it on some temporary branch of linux-block.git? Looks not. Thanks, -- Dexuan ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{����n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
