hi, Niklas, On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 10:09:14AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 07:49:25AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 10:49:41AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > > > > > from below information, it seems an 'ahci' to me. but since I have limited > > > > > knowledge about storage driver, maybe I'm wrong. if you want more information, > > > > > please let us know. thanks a lot! > > > > > > > > Yes, this looks like ahci. Thanks a lot! > > > > > > Did this ever get resolved? > > > > > > I haven't seen a patch that seems to address this. > > > > > > AHCI (ata_scsi_queuecmd()) only issues a single command, so if there is any > > > reordering when issuing a batch of commands, my guess is that the problem > > > also affects SCSI / the problem is in upper layers above AHCI, i.e. SCSI lib > > > or block layer. > > > > I started looking into this before the holidays. blktrace shows perfectly > > sequential writes without any reordering using ahci, directly on the > > block device or using xfs and btrfs when using dd. I also started > > looking into what the test does and got as far as checking out the > > stress-ng source tree and looking at stress-aiol.c. AFAICS the default > > submission does simple reads and writes using increasing offsets. > > So if the test result isn't a fluke either the aio code does some > > weird reordering or btrfs does. > > > > Oliver, did the test also show any interesting results on non-btrfs > > setups? > > > > One thing that came to mind. > Some distros (e.g. Fedora and openSUSE) ship with an udev rule that sets > the I/O scheduler to BFQ for single-queue HDDs. > > It could very well be the I/O scheduler that reorders. > > Oliver, which I/O scheduler are you using? > $ cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler > none mq-deadline kyber [bfq] while our test running: # cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler none [mq-deadline] kyber bfq > > > Kind regards, > Niklas
