On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 08:06:15AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 05/03/2017 08:51 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:13:03PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 05/03/2017 08:01 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 5:40 AM, Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 04:13:51AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:15:36PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > >>>>>>> When blk-mq I/O scheduler is used, we need two tags for > >>>>>>> submitting one request. One is called scheduler tag for > >>>>>>> allocating request and scheduling I/O, another one is called > >>>>>>> driver tag, which is used for dispatching IO to hardware/driver. > >>>>>>> This way introduces one extra per-queue allocation for both tags > >>>>>>> and request pool, and may not be as efficient as case of none > >>>>>>> scheduler. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also currently we put a default per-hctx limit on schedulable > >>>>>>> requests, and this limit may be a bottleneck for some devices, > >>>>>>> especialy when these devices have a quite big tag space. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This patch introduces BLK_MQ_F_SCHED_USE_HW_TAG so that we can > >>>>>>> allow to use hardware/driver tags directly for IO scheduling if > >>>>>>> devices's hardware tag space is big enough. Then we can avoid > >>>>>>> the extra resource allocation and make IO submission more > >>>>>>> efficient. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> block/blk-mq-sched.c | 10 +++++++++- > >>>>>>> block/blk-mq.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >>>>>>> include/linux/blk-mq.h | 1 + > >>>>>>> 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> One more note on this: if we're using the hardware tags directly, then > >>>>>> we are no longer limited to q->nr_requests requests in-flight. Instead, > >>>>>> we're limited to the hw queue depth. We probably want to maintain the > >>>>>> original behavior, > >>>>> > >>>>> That need further investigation, and generally scheduler should be happy with > >>>>> more requests which can be scheduled. > >>>>> > >>>>> We can make it as one follow-up. > >>>> > >>>> If we say nr_requests is 256, then we should honor that. So either > >>>> update nr_requests to reflect the actual depth we're using or resize the > >>>> hardware tags. > >>> > >>> Firstly nr_requests is set as 256 from blk-mq inside instead of user > >>> space, it won't be a big deal to violate that. > >> > >> The legacy scheduling layer used 2*128 by default, that's why I used the > >> "magic" 256 internally. FWIW, I agree with Omar here. If it's set to > >> 256, we must honor that. Users will tweak this value down to trade peak > >> performance for latency, it's important that it does what it advertises. > > > > In case of scheduling with hw tags, we share tags between scheduler and > > dispatching, if we resize(only decrease actually) the tags, dispatching > > space(hw tags) is decreased too. That means the actual usable device tag > > space need to be decreased much. > > I think the solution here is to handle it differently. Previous, we had > requests and tags independent. That meant that we could have an > independent set of requests for scheduling, then assign tags as we need > to dispatch them to hardware. This is how the old schedulers worked, and > with the scheduler tags, this is how the new blk-mq scheduling works as > well. > > Once you start treating them as one space again, we run into this issue. > I can think of two solutions: > > 1) Keep our current split, so we can schedule independently of hardware > tags. Actually hw tag depends on scheduler tag as I explained, so both aren't independently, and even they looks split. Also I am not sure how we do that if we need to support scheduling with hw tag, could you explain it a bit? > > 2) Throttle the queue depth independently. If the user asks for a depth > of, eg, 32, retain a larger set of requests but limit the queue depth > on the device side fo 32. If I understand correctly, we can support scheduling with hw tag by this patchset plus setting q->nr_requests as size of hw tag space. Otherwise it isn't easy to throttle the queue depth independently because hw tag actually depends on scheduler tag. The 3rd one is to follow Omar's suggestion, by resizing the queue depth as q->nr_requests simply. > > This is much easier to support with split hardware and scheduler tags... > > >>> Secondly, when there is enough tags available, it might hurt > >>> performance if we don't use them all. > >> > >> That's mostly bogus. Crazy large tag depths have only one use case - > >> synthetic peak performance benchmarks from manufacturers. We don't want > >> to allow really deep queues. Nothing good comes from that, just a lot of > >> pain and latency issues. > > > > Given device provides so high queue depth, it might be reasonable to just > > allow to use them up. For example of NVMe, once mq scheduler is enabled, > > the actual size of device tag space is just 256 at default, even though > > the hardware provides very big tag space(>= 10K). > > Correct. > > > The problem is that lifetime of sched tag is same with request's > > lifetime(from submission to completion), and it covers lifetime of > > device tag. In theory sched tag should have been freed just after > > the rq is dispatched to driver. Unfortunately we can't do that because > > request is allocated from sched tag set. > > Yep Request copying like what your first post of mq scheduler patch did may fix this issue, and in that way we can make both two tag space independent, but with extra cost. What do you think about this approach? > > >> The most important part is actually that the scheduler has a higher > >> depth than the device, as mentioned in an email from a few days ago. We > > > > I agree this point, but: > > > > Unfortunately in case of NVMe or other high depth devices, the default > > scheduler queue depth(256) is much less than device depth, do we need to > > adjust the default value for this devices? In theory, the default 256 > > scheduler depth may hurt performance on this devices since the device > > tag space is much under-utilized. > > No we do not. 256 is a LOT. I realize most of the devices expose 64K * > num_hw_queues of depth. Expecting to utilize all that is insane. > Internally, these devices have nowhere near that amount of parallelism. > Hence we'd go well beyond the latency knee in the curve if we just allow > tons of writeback to queue up, for example. Reaching peak performance on > these devices do not require more than 256 requests, in fact it can be > done much sooner. For a default setting, I'd actually argue that 256 is > too much, and that we should set it lower. Then the question is that why storage hardware/industry introduce so big tag space in modern storage hardwares? Definitly tag space isn't free from view of hardware. IMO, big tag space may improve latency a bit in heavy I/O load, and my simple test has showed the improvement. Is there anyone who knows the design befind big tag space/hw queue depth? Cc NVMe and SCSI list, since there may have more storage hw experts. IMO, if this degisn is just for meeting some very special performance requirements, block layer should have allowed useres to make full use of the big tag space. Thanks, Ming
