Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, dm-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] block: lift setting the readahead size into the block layer
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:35:40 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200917103540.GL7347@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200910144833.742260-7-hch@lst.de>

On Thu 10-09-20 16:48:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Drivers shouldn't really mess with the readahead size, as that is a VM
> concept.  Instead set it based on the optimal I/O size by lifting the
> algorithm from the md driver when registering the disk.  Also set
> bdi->io_pages there as well by applying the same scheme based on
> max_sectors.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> ---
>  block/blk-settings.c         |  5 ++---
>  block/blk-sysfs.c            | 10 +++++++++-
>  block/genhd.c                |  5 +++--
>  drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c   |  2 --
>  drivers/block/drbd/drbd_nl.c | 12 +-----------
>  drivers/md/bcache/super.c    |  4 ----
>  drivers/md/dm-table.c        |  3 ---
>  drivers/md/raid0.c           | 16 ----------------
>  drivers/md/raid10.c          | 24 +-----------------------
>  drivers/md/raid5.c           | 13 +------------
>  10 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
> index 76a7e03bcd6cac..01049e9b998f1d 100644
> --- a/block/blk-settings.c
> +++ b/block/blk-settings.c
> @@ -452,6 +452,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_limits_io_opt);
>  void blk_queue_io_opt(struct request_queue *q, unsigned int opt)
>  {
>  	blk_limits_io_opt(&q->limits, opt);
> +	q->backing_dev_info->ra_pages =
> +		max(queue_io_opt(q) * 2 / PAGE_SIZE, VM_READAHEAD_PAGES);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_queue_io_opt);
>  
> @@ -628,9 +630,6 @@ void disk_stack_limits(struct gendisk *disk, struct block_device *bdev,
>  		printk(KERN_NOTICE "%s: Warning: Device %s is misaligned\n",
>  		       top, bottom);
>  	}
> -
> -	t->backing_dev_info->io_pages =
> -		t->limits.max_sectors >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 9);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(disk_stack_limits);
>  
> diff --git a/block/blk-sysfs.c b/block/blk-sysfs.c
> index 81722cdcf0cb21..95eb35324e1a61 100644
> --- a/block/blk-sysfs.c
> +++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c
> @@ -245,7 +245,6 @@ queue_max_sectors_store(struct request_queue *q, const char *page, size_t count)
>  
>  	spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>  	q->limits.max_sectors = max_sectors_kb << 1;
> -	q->backing_dev_info->io_pages = max_sectors_kb >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);

So do I get it right that readahead won't now be limited if you store lower
value to max_sectors? Why? I'd consider io_pages a "cached value" of
max_sectors and thus expect it to change together with max_sectors...

> @@ -854,6 +853,15 @@ int blk_register_queue(struct gendisk *disk)
>  		percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu(&q->q_usage_counter);
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * For read-ahead of large files to be effective, we need to read ahead
> +	 * at least twice the optimal I/O size.
> +	 */
> +	q->backing_dev_info->ra_pages =
> +		max(queue_io_opt(q) * 2 / PAGE_SIZE, VM_READAHEAD_PAGES);
> +	q->backing_dev_info->io_pages =
> +		queue_max_sectors(q) >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 9);
> +
>  	ret = blk_trace_init_sysfs(dev);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
> diff --git a/block/genhd.c b/block/genhd.c
> index 081f1039d9367f..db311a14ddc71a 100644
> --- a/block/genhd.c
> +++ b/block/genhd.c
> @@ -772,6 +772,7 @@ static void __device_add_disk(struct device *parent, struct gendisk *disk,
>  			      const struct attribute_group **groups,
>  			      bool register_queue)
>  {
> +	struct request_queue *q = disk->queue;
>  	dev_t devt;
>  	int retval;
>  
> @@ -782,7 +783,7 @@ static void __device_add_disk(struct device *parent, struct gendisk *disk,
>  	 * registration.
>  	 */
>  	if (register_queue)
> -		elevator_init_mq(disk->queue);
> +		elevator_init_mq(q);
>  
>  	/* minors == 0 indicates to use ext devt from part0 and should
>  	 * be accompanied with EXT_DEVT flag.  Make sure all
> @@ -812,7 +813,7 @@ static void __device_add_disk(struct device *parent, struct gendisk *disk,
>  		disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_SUPPRESS_PARTITION_INFO;
>  		disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
>  	} else {
> -		struct backing_dev_info *bdi = disk->queue->backing_dev_info;
> +		struct backing_dev_info *bdi = q->backing_dev_info;
>  		struct device *dev = disk_to_dev(disk);
>  		int ret;

Not sure how/why these changes got here... Not that I care too much :)

>  
> diff --git a/drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c b/drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c
> index 5ca7216e9e01f3..89b33b402b4e52 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/aoe/aoeblk.c
> @@ -347,7 +347,6 @@ aoeblk_gdalloc(void *vp)
>  	mempool_t *mp;
>  	struct request_queue *q;
>  	struct blk_mq_tag_set *set;
> -	enum { KB = 1024, MB = KB * KB, READ_AHEAD = 2 * MB, };
>  	ulong flags;
>  	int late = 0;
>  	int err;
> @@ -407,7 +406,6 @@ aoeblk_gdalloc(void *vp)
>  	WARN_ON(d->gd);
>  	WARN_ON(d->flags & DEVFL_UP);
>  	blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(q, BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS);
> -	q->backing_dev_info->ra_pages = READ_AHEAD / PAGE_SIZE;
>  	d->bufpool = mp;
>  	d->blkq = gd->queue = q;
>  	q->queuedata = d;

Shouldn't AOE set 2MB optimal IO size so that readahead is equivalent to
previous behavior?

> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> index 1bbdc410ee3c51..ff2101d56cd7f1 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> @@ -1427,10 +1427,6 @@ static int cached_dev_init(struct cached_dev *dc, unsigned int block_size)
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	dc->disk.disk->queue->backing_dev_info->ra_pages =
> -		max(dc->disk.disk->queue->backing_dev_info->ra_pages,
> -		    q->backing_dev_info->ra_pages);
> -

So bcache is basically stacking readahead here on top of underlying cache
device. I don't see this being replicated by your patch so it is lost now?
Probably this should be replaced by properly inheriting optimal IO size?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-17 10:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-10 14:48 bdi cleanups v4 Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 01/12] fs: remove the unused SB_I_MULTIROOT flag Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17  9:41   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 02/12] drbd: remove dead code in device_to_statistics Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17  9:46   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 03/12] drbd: remove RB_CONGESTED_REMOTE Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17  9:55   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-19  6:58     ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 04/12] bdi: initialize ->ra_pages and ->io_pages in bdi_init Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17 10:04   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-19  7:01     ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 05/12] md: update the optimal I/O size on reshape Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-12  6:17   ` Song Liu
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 06/12] block: lift setting the readahead size into the block layer Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17 10:35   ` Jan Kara [this message]
2020-09-19  7:31     ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 07/12] bdi: remove BDI_CAP_CGROUP_WRITEBACK Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-16  9:28   ` David Sterba
2020-09-17  9:36   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 08/12] bdi: remove BDI_CAP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17  9:36   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 09/12] mm: use SWP_SYNCHRONOUS_IO more intelligently Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17  9:06   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 10/12] bdi: replace BDI_CAP_STABLE_WRITES with a queue and a sb flag Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17  9:25   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-19  6:51     ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 11/12] bdi: invert BDI_CAP_NO_ACCT_WB Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17  9:27   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-10 14:48 ` [PATCH 12/12] bdi: replace BDI_CAP_NO_{WRITEBACK,ACCT_DIRTY} with a single flag Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-17  9:31   ` Jan Kara
2020-09-15 15:18 bdi cleanups v5 Christoph Hellwig
2020-09-15 15:18 ` [PATCH 06/12] block: lift setting the readahead size into the block layer Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200917103540.GL7347@quack2.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=drbd-dev@lists.linbit.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 06/12] block: lift setting the readahead size into the block layer' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).