On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 08:26:32AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> 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()).
Not sure this one is same with yours, for USB, mq-deadline is used at
default, and direct issue won't be possible. Direct issue is only used
in case of none or underlying queues of DM multipath.
thanks,
Ming
