Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1278828
| From | Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq |
| Date | 2015-11-27 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qzslP-471-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qyZWy-2oi-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <qz12h-3e6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> while investigating the crash in scsi_lib.c I found a rather curious >> behaviour for QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE. >> >> While the flag is evaluated in blk_recalc_rq_segments and >> blk_recount_segments (resulting in nr_phys_segments being >> computed based on that flag) it is completely ignored >> during blk_rq_map_sg() or the actual merging itself. > > Yes, I guess Jens introduced the flag for decreasing CPU > consumption when comuputing segments, but it is still > ignored by blk_rq_map_sg(), but it may not be used > by some drivers. > > After bio splitting is introduced, the flag is also ignored > when computing segments. > >> >> This typically shouldn't be an issue, seeing that with >> QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE nr_phys_segments will always be >> larger than the actual segment count. >> >> However, it still makes me wonder: >> What is the point of having a QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE >> which doesn't work as advertised? >> Or, to be precise, which only works for blk-mq? >> Should we make it work for non-block-mq, too? > > Thanks bio splitting, this flag has little effect on performance now, > so I think it can be removed if Jens has no objection. > As per your suggestion we've made some performance measurements, and 4k fio showed little if no impact: NO_SG_MERGE: IOPS R/W: 148097.7+-125.7 / 148124.1+-123.1 BW R/W: 592392.4+-502.7 / 592498.3+-492.3 SG_MERGE: IOPS R/W: 148054.4+-123.3 / 148082.6+-120.0 BW R/W: 592219.2+-493.5 / 592332.3+-479.7 So the performance benefit lies squarely within the error margin, making me wonder if it's worth bothering with having the NO_SG_MERGE flag at all. Thanks to Johannes for doing the measurements :-) Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2015-11-26 09:20 +0100
Re: QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com> - 2015-11-26 10:30 +0100
Re: QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> - 2015-11-27 15:40 +0100
Re: QUEUE_FLAG_NO_SG_MERGE and non-block-mq Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> - 2015-11-27 17:20 +0100
csiph-web