[dm-devel] [PATCH v3 11/11] dm: fastpath of bio-based polling

[JeffleXu]

On 3/3/21 3:03 AM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, JeffleXu wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 2/20/21 3:38 AM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Feb 2021, Jeffle Xu wrote:
>>>
>>>> Offer one fastpath of bio-based polling when bio submitted to dm device
>>>> is not split.
>>>>
>>>> In this case, there will be only one bio submitted to only one polling
>>>> hw queue of one underlying mq device, and thus we don't need to track
>>>> all split bios or iterate through all polling hw queues. The pointer to
>>>> the polling hw queue the bio submitted to is returned here as the
>>>> returned cookie.
>>>
>>> This doesn't seem safe - note that between submit_bio() and blk_poll(), no 
>>> locks are held - so the device mapper device may be reconfigured 
>>> arbitrarily. When you call blk_poll() with a pointer returned by 
>>> submit_bio(), the pointer may point to a stale address.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. Indeed maybe it's not a good idea to directly
>> return a 'struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *' pointer as the returned cookie.
>>
>> Currently I have no idea to fix it, orz... The
>> blk_get_queue()/blk_put_queue() tricks may not work in this case.
>> Because the returned cookie may not be used at all. Before calling
>> blk_poll(), the polling routine may find that the corresponding IO has
>> already completed, and thus won't call blk_poll(), in which case we have
>> no place to put the refcount.
>>
>> But I really don't want to drop this optimization, since this
>> optimization is quite intuitive when dm device maps to a lot of
>> underlying devices. Though this optimization doesn't actually achieve
>> reasonable performance gain in my test, maybe because there are at most
>> seven nvme devices in my test machine.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeffle
> 
> Hi
> 
> I reworked device mapper polling, so that we poll in the function 
> __split_and_process_bio. The pointer to a queue and the polling cookie is 
> passed only inside device mapper code, it never leaves it.
> 
> I'll send you my patches - try them and tell me how does it perform 
> compared to your patchset.
> 

Thanks. Be glad to hear that you're also working on this. I'm glad to
give some comments on your patch set.


-- 
Thanks,
Jeffle