[dm-devel] [PATCH 4/4] dm: support I/O polling

[Heinz Mauelshagen]

On 3/5/21 6:46 PM, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote:
> On 3/5/21 10:52 AM, JeffleXu wrote:
>>
>> On 3/3/21 6:09 PM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2021, JeffleXu wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/3/21 3:05 AM, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Support I/O polling if submit_bio_noacct_mq_direct returned non-empty
>>>>> cookie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka at redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/md/dm.c |    5 +++++
>>>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm.c
>>>>> ===================================================================
>>>>> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/md/dm.c    2021-03-02 
>>>>> 19:26:34.000000000 +0100
>>>>> +++ linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm.c    2021-03-02 19:26:34.000000000 +0100
>>>>> @@ -1682,6 +1682,11 @@ static void __split_and_process_bio(stru
>>>>>           }
>>>>>       }
>>>>>   +    if (ci.poll_cookie != BLK_QC_T_NONE) {
>>>>> +        while (atomic_read(&ci.io->io_count) > 1 &&
>>>>> +               blk_poll(ci.poll_queue, ci.poll_cookie, true)) ;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>>       /* drop the extra reference count */
>>>>>       dec_pending(ci.io, errno_to_blk_status(error));
>>>>>   }
>>>> It seems that the general idea of your design is to
>>>> 1) submit *one* split bio
>>>> 2) blk_poll(), waiting the previously submitted split bio complets
>>> No, I submit all the bios and poll for the last one.
>>>
>>>> and then submit next split bio, repeating the above process. I'm 
>>>> afraid
>>>> the performance may be an issue here, since the batch every time
>>>> blk_poll() reaps may decrease.
>>> Could you benchmark it?
>> I only tested dm-linear.
>>
>> The configuration (dm table) of dm-linear is:
>> 0 1048576 linear /dev/nvme0n1 0
>> 1048576 1048576 linear /dev/nvme2n1 0
>> 2097152 1048576 linear /dev/nvme5n1 0
>>
>>
>> fio script used is:
>> ```
>> $cat fio.conf
>> [global]
>> name=iouring-sqpoll-iopoll-1
>> ioengine=io_uring
>> iodepth=128
>> numjobs=1
>> thread
>> rw=randread
>> direct=1
>> registerfiles=1
>> hipri=1
>> runtime=10
>> time_based
>> group_reporting
>> randrepeat=0
>> filename=/dev/mapper/testdev
>> bs=4k
>>
>> [job-1]
>> cpus_allowed=14
>> ```
>>
>> IOPS (IRQ mode) | IOPS (iopoll mode (hipri=1))
>> --------------- | --------------------
>>             213k |           19k
>>
>> At least, it doesn't work well with io_uring interface.
>>
>>
>
>
> Jeffle,
>
> I ran your above fio test on a linear LV split across 3 NVMes to 
> second your split mapping
> (system: 32 core Intel, 256GiB RAM) comparing io engines sync, libaio 
> and io_uring,
> the latter w/ and w/o hipri (sync+libaio obviously w/o registerfiles 
> and hipri) which resulted ok:
>
>
>
> sync  |  libaio  |  IRQ mode (hipri=0) | iopoll (hipri=1) 
> ------|----------|---------------------|----------------- 56.3K |    
> 290K  |                329K |             351K I can't second your 
> drastic hipri=1 drop here...


Sorry, email mess.


sync   |  libaio  |  IRQ mode (hipri=0) | iopoll (hipri=1)
-------|----------|---------------------|-----------------
56.3K  |    290K  |                329K |             351K



I can't second your drastic hipri=1 drop here...


> Heinz