Re: dm-rq: do not update rq partially in each ending bio

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 01:07:53AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:32:33PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 25 2017 at 12:08pm -0400,
> > Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 11:48:39AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 25 2017 at 11:27am -0400,
> > > > Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > We don't need to update orignal dm request partially
> > > > > when ending each cloned bio, and this patch just
> > > > > updates orignal dm request once when the whole
> > > > > cloned request is finished.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Partial request update can be a bit expensive, so
> > > > > we should try to avoid it, especially it is run
> > > > > in softirq context.
> > > > > 
> > > > > After this patch is applied, both hard lockup and
> > > > > soft lockup aren't reproduced any more in one hour
> > > > > of running Laurence's test[1] on IB/SRP. Without
> > > > > this patch, the lockup can be reproduced in several
> > > > > minutes.
> > > > > 
> > > > > BTW, after d4acf3650c7c(block: Make blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list()
> > > > > rerun the queue at a quiet time), we need to make the
> > > > > test more aggressive for reproducing the lockup:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	1) run hammer_write.sh 32 or 64 concurrently.
> > > > > 	2) write 8M each time
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=150220185510245&w=2
> > > > 
> > > > Bart said he cannot reproduce the lockups with his patchset applied.
> > > > Have you tested using Bart's patchset?
> > > 
> > > d4acf3650c7c(block: Make blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list() rerun the
> > > queue at a quiet time) has been in linus tree.
> > > 
> > > For other patches, I didn't test it yet. Because every time
> > > when the lockup is triggered, it is always in blk_recalc_rq_segments(),
> > > and not see any patch is dealing with that.
> > 
> > Please test with all of Bart's patches applied!
> 
> Just done the test with Bart's patch, still can
> see soft lockup when running the test described

Looks no difference, hard lockup can be observed too 
following soft lockup after a while with Bart's patch.

-- 
Ming



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux