On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:32:52AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 02:56:46PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> When hw queue is busy, we shouldn't take requests from
> >> scheduler queue any more, otherwise IO merge will be
> >> difficult to do.
> >>
> >> This patch fixes the awful IO performance on some
> >> SCSI devices(lpfc, qla2xxx, ...) when mq-deadline/kyber
> >> is used by not taking requests if hw queue is busy.
> >
> > Jens added this behavior in 64765a75ef25 ("blk-mq-sched: ask scheduler
> > for work, if we failed dispatching leftovers"). That change was a big
> > performance improvement, but we didn't figure out why. We'll need to dig
> > up whatever test Jens was doing to make sure it doesn't regress.
>
> Not found info about Jen's test case on this commit from google.
>
> Maybe Jens could provide some input about your test case?
Okay I found my previous discussion with Jens (it was an off-list
discussion). The test case was xfs/297 from xfstests: after
64765a75ef25, the test went from taking ~300 seconds to ~200 seconds on
his SCSI device.
> In theory, if hw queue is busy and requests are left in ->dispatch,
> we should not have continued to dequeue requests from sw/scheduler queue
> any more. Otherwise, IO merge can be hurt much. At least on SCSI devices,
> this improved much on sequential I/O, at least 3X of sequential
> read is increased on lpfc with this patch, in case of mq-deadline.
Right, your patch definitely makes more sense intuitively.
> Or are there other special cases in which we still need
> to push requests hard into a busy hardware?
xfs/297 does a lot of fsyncs and hence a lot of flushes, that could be
the special case.
> And this patch won't have an effect on devices in which queue busy
> is seldom triggered, such as NVMe.
