On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 10:09:25AM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > 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. What I meant is that sub-range isn't doable. And pthread is aligned with queue, that is nothing to do with nr_tags. > > > 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. NVMe PCI isn't special, and it is covered by current ublk abstract, so one way or another, we should not support both sub-range or non-sub-range for avoiding unnecessary complexity. "Each pthread has its own independent tag space" may mean two things 1) each LUN/NS is implemented in standalone process space: - so every queue of each LUN has its own space, but all the queues with same ID share the whole queue tag space - that matches with current ublksrv - also easier to implement 2) all LUNs/NSs are implemented in single process space - so each pthread handles one queue for all NSs/LUNs Yeah, if you mean 2), the tag allocation is cheap, but the existed ublk char device has to handle multiple LUNs/NSs(disks), which still need (big) ublk interface change. Also this way can't scale for single queue devices. Another thing is that io command buffer has to be shared among all LUNs/ NSs. So interface change has to cover shared io command buffer. With zero copy support, io buffer sharing needn't to be considered, that can be a bit easier. In short, the sharing of (tag, io command buffer, io buffer) needs to be considered for shared host ublk disks. Actually I prefer to 1), which matches with current design, and we can just add host concept into ublk, and implementation could be easier. BTW, ublk has been applied to implement iscsi alternative disk[1] for Longhorn[2], and the performance improvement is pretty nice, so I think it is one reasonable requirement to support "shared host" ublk disks for covering multi-lun or multi-ns. [1] https://github.com/ming1/ubdsrv/issues/49 [2] https://github.com/longhorn/longhorn Thanks, Ming
