On 2019/09/18 18:30, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019, Andrea Vai wrote:
>
>>> Also, I wonder if the changing the size of the data transfers would
>>> make any difference. This is easy to try; just write "64" to
>>> /sys/block/sd?/queue/max_sectors_kb (where the ? is the appropriate
>>> drive letter) after the drive is plugged in but before the test
>>> starts.
>>
>> ok, so I duplicated the tests above for the "64" case (it was
>> initially set as "120", if it is relevant to know), leading to 40 tests named as
>>
>> bad.mon.out_50000000_64_TIMESTAMP
>> bad.mon.out_50000000_non64_TIMESTAMP
>> good.mon.out_50000000_64_TIMESTAMP
>> good.mon.out_50000000_non64_TIMESTAMP
>>
>> where "64" denotes the ones done with that value in max_sectors_kb,
>> and "not64" the ones without it (as far as I can tell, it has been
>> always "120").
>>
>> So, we have 40 traces total. Each set of 10 trials is identified by
>> a text file, which contains the output log of the test script (and the
>> timestamps), also available in the download zipfile.
>>
>> Just to summarize here the times, they are respectively (number
>> expressed in seconds):
>>
>> BAD:
>> Logs: log_10trials_50MB_BAD_NonCanc_64.txt,
>> log_10trials_50MB_BAD_NonCanc_non64.txt
>> 64: 34, 34, 35, 39, 37, 32, 42, 44, 43, 40
>> not64: 61, 71, 59, 71, 62, 75, 62, 70, 62, 68
>> GOOD:
>> Logs: log_10trials_50MB_GOOD_NonCanc_64.txt,
>> log_10trials_50MB_GOOD_NonCanc_non64.txt
>> 64: 34, 32, 35, 34, 35, 33, 34, 33, 33, 33
>> not64: 32, 30, 32, 31, 31, 30, 32, 30, 32, 31
>
> The improvement from using "64" with the bad kernel is quite large.
> That alone would be a big help for you.
>
> However, I did see what appears to be a very significant difference
> between the bad and good kernel traces. It has to do with the order in
> which the blocks are accessed.
>
> Here is an extract from one of the bad traces. I have erased all the
> information except for the columns containing the block numbers to be
> written:
>
> 00019628 00
> 00019667 00
> 00019628 80
> 00019667 80
> 00019629 00
> 00019668 00
> 00019629 80
> 00019668 80
>
> Here is the equivalent portion from one of the good traces:
>
> 00019628 00
> 00019628 80
> 00019629 00
> 00019629 80
> 0001962a 00
> 0001962a 80
> 0001962b 00
> 0001962b 80
>
> Notice that under the good kernel, the block numbers increase
> monotonically in a single sequence. But under the bad kernel, the
> block numbers are not monotonic -- it looks like there are two separate
> threads each with its own strictly increasing sequence.
>
> This is exactly the sort of difference one might expect to see from
> the commit f664a3cc17b7 ("scsi: kill off the legacy IO path") you
> identified as the cause of the problem. With multiqueue I/O, it's not
> surprising to see multiple sequences of block numbers.
>
> Add it's not at all surprising that a consumer-grade USB storage device
> might do a much worse job of handling non-sequential writes than
> sequential ones.
>
> Which leads to a simple question for the SCSI or block-layer
> maintainers: Is there a sysfs setting Andrea can tweak which will
> effectively restrict a particular disk device down to a single I/O
> queue, forcing sequential access?
The scheduling inefficiency you are seeing may be coming from the fact that the
block layer does a direct issue of requests, bypassing the elevator, under some
conditions. One of these is sync requests on a multiqueue device. We hit this
problem on Zoned disks which can easily return an error for write requests
without the elevator throttling writes per zones (zone write locking). This
problem was discovered by Hans (on CC).
I discussed this with Hannes yesterday and we think we have a fix, but we'll
need to do a lot of testing as all block devices are potentially impacted by the
change, including stacked drivers (DM). Performance regression is scary with any
change in that area (see blk_mq_make_request() and use of
blk_mq_try_issue_directly() vs blk_mq_sched_insert_request()).
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
