On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 11:22:55AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 03:18:19PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 07:17:33AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 01:38:08PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 07:22:49PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:39:58AM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:20:45AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 12:21:32PM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:44:02AM +0100, Andreas Hindborg wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Ming, > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 02:13:59PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 11:47:31AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 07:17:10AM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 10:12:19AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 03:27:09PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 11:00:27PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > So far UBLK is only used for implementing virtual block device from > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > userspace, such as loop, nbd, qcow2, ...[1]. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > I won't be at LSF/MM so here are my thoughts: > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks for the thoughts, :-) > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > It could be useful for UBLK to cover real storage hardware too: > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > - for fast prototype or performance evaluation > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > - some network storages are attached to host, such as iscsi and nvme-tcp, > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > the current UBLK interface doesn't support such devices, since it needs > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > all LUNs/Namespaces to share host resources(such as tag) > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > Can you explain this in more detail? It seems like an iSCSI or > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > NVMe-over-TCP initiator could be implemented as a ublk server today. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > What am I missing? > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > The current ublk can't do that yet, because the interface doesn't > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > support multiple ublk disks sharing single host, which is exactly > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > the case of scsi and nvme. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Can you give an example that shows exactly where a problem is hit? > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > I took a quick look at the ublk source code and didn't spot a place > > > > > > > > >> >> > > where it prevents a single ublk server process from handling multiple > > > > > > > > >> >> > > devices. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Regarding "host resources(such as tag)", can the ublk server deal with > > > > > > > > >> >> > > that in userspace? The Linux block layer doesn't have the concept of a > > > > > > > > >> >> > > "host", that would come in at the SCSI/NVMe level that's implemented in > > > > > > > > >> >> > > userspace. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > I don't understand yet... > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > blk_mq_tag_set is embedded into driver host structure, and referred by queue > > > > > > > > >> >> > via q->tag_set, both scsi and nvme allocates tag in host/queue wide, > > > > > > > > >> >> > that said all LUNs/NSs share host/queue tags, current every ublk > > > > > > > > >> >> > device is independent, and can't shard tags. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> Does this actually prevent ublk servers with multiple ublk devices or is > > > > > > > > >> >> it just sub-optimal? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > It is former, ublk can't support multiple devices which share single host > > > > > > > > >> > because duplicated tag can be seen in host side, then io is failed. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> I have trouble following this discussion. Why can we not handle multiple > > > > > > > > >> block devices in a single ublk user space process? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> From this conversation it seems that the limiting factor is allocation > > > > > > > > >> of the tag set of the virtual device in the kernel? But as far as I can > > > > > > > > >> tell, the tag sets are allocated per virtual block device in > > > > > > > > >> `ublk_ctrl_add_dev()`? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> It seems to me that a single ublk user space process shuld be able to > > > > > > > > >> connect to multiple storage devices (for instance nvme-of) and then > > > > > > > > >> create a ublk device for each namespace, all from a single ublk process. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> Could you elaborate on why this is not possible? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the multiple storages devices are independent, the current ublk can > > > > > > > > > handle them just fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if these storage devices(such as luns in iscsi, or NSs in nvme-tcp) > > > > > > > > > share single host, and use host-wide tagset, the current interface can't > > > > > > > > > work as expected, because tags is shared among all these devices. The > > > > > > > > > current ublk interface needs to be extended for covering this case. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying, that is very helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Follow up question: What would the implications be if one tried to > > > > > > > > expose (through ublk) each nvme namespace of an nvme-of controller with > > > > > > > > an independent tag set? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/877cwhrgul.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m57158db9f0108e529d8d62d1d56652c52e9e3e67 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are the benefits of sharing a tagset across > > > > > > > > all namespaces of a controller? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The userspace implementation can be simplified a lot since generic > > > > > > > shared tag allocation isn't needed, meantime with good performance > > > > > > > (shared tags allocation in SMP is one hard problem) > > > > > > > > > > > > In NVMe, tags are per Submission Queue. AFAIK there's no such thing as > > > > > > shared tags across multiple SQs in NVMe. So userspace doesn't need an > > > > > > > > > > In reality the max supported nr_queues of nvme is often much less than > > > > > nr_cpu_ids, for example, lots of nvme-pci devices just support at most > > > > > 32 queues, I remembered that Azure nvme supports less(just 8 queues). > > > > > That is because queue isn't free in both software and hardware, which > > > > > implementation is often tradeoff between performance and cost. > > > > > > > > I didn't say that the ublk server should have nr_cpu_ids threads. I > > > > thought the idea was the ublk server creates as many threads as it needs > > > > (e.g. max 8 if the Azure NVMe device only has 8 queues). > > > > > > > > Do you expect ublk servers to have nr_cpu_ids threads in all/most cases? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > In ublksrv project, each pthread maps to one unique hardware queue, so total > > > number of pthread is equal to nr_hw_queues. > > > > Good, I think we agree on that part. > > > > Here is a summary of the ublk server model I've been describing: > > 1. Each pthread has a separate io_uring context. > > 2. Each pthread has its own hardware submission queue (NVMe SQ, SCSI > > command queue, etc). > > 3. Each pthread has a distinct subrange of the tag space if the tag > > space is shared across hardware submission queues. > > 4. Each pthread allocates tags from its subrange without coordinating > > with other threads. This is cheap and simple. > > That is also not doable. > > The tag space can be pretty small, such as, usb-storage queue depth > is just 1, and usb card reader can support multi lun too. If the tag space is very limited, just create one pthread. > That is just one extreme example, but there can be more low queue depth > scsi devices(sata : 32, ...), typical nvme/pci queue depth is 1023, but > there could be some implementation with less. NVMe PCI has per-sq tags so subranges aren't needed. Each pthread has its own independent tag space. That means NVMe devices with low queue depths work fine in the model I described. I don't know the exact SCSI/SATA scenario you mentioned, but if there are only 32 tags globally then just create one pthread. If you mean AHCI PCI devices, my understanding is that AHCI is multi-LUN but each port (LUN) has a single Command List (queue) has an independent tag space. Therefore each port has just one ublk_queue that is handled by one pthread. > More importantly subrange could waste lots of tags for idle LUNs/NSs, and > active LUNs/NSs will have to suffer from the small subrange tags. And available > tags depth represents the max allowed in-flight block IOs, so performance > is affected a lot by subrange. Tag subranges are pthread, not per-LUN/NS, so these concerns do not apply to the model I described. Are there any other reasons why you say this model is not doable? Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
