Re: [PATCH] Adding multiple workers to the loop device.

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

 



On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:29 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Please don't top post, we just lost all context here unless I had fixed
> it up for you.
>
>
> On 1/23/20 12:25 PM, Muraliraja Muniraju wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:59 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/21/20 12:25 PM, muraliraja.muniraju wrote:
> >>> Current loop device implementation has a single kthread worker and
> >>> drains one request at a time to completion. If the underneath device is
> >>> slow then this reduces the concurrency significantly. To help in these
> >>> cases, adding multiple loop workers increases the concurrency. Also to
> >>> retain the old behaviour the default number of loop workers is 1 and can
> >>> be tuned via the ioctl.
> >>
> >> Have you considered using blk-mq for this? Right now loop just does
> >> some basic checks and then queues for a thread. If you bump nr_hw_queues
> >> up (provide a parameter for that) and set BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING in the
> >> tag flags, then that might be a more viable approach for handling this.
> >
> > I see that the kernel is already is using the multi queues with the
> > number of hardware queues is 1. But the problem IMO is that the worker
> > seems to be processing 1 request at a time, to parallelize requests
> > and have more concurrency more workers needs to be added. I also tried
> > increasing the nr_hw_queues without increasing the number of workers,
> > I did not see any difference in performance and it stayed the same. It
> > allows to queue more requests but it is processed one at a time. I
> > have not tried with enabling BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING though. I see that it
> > can schedule requests early.
>
> The experiment is useless without BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING set, so you need
> that at least. With that, you _will_ see work items processed in
> parallel, depending on where they are queued from.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
Sure, let me try setting the BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING on the existing patch
that I sent and see. Will update soon, Thanks.



[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