Re: [PATCH] block: blk-merge: fast-clone bio when splitting rw bios

[Jens Axboe]

On 09/17/2015 09:55 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 09:50 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 09/17/2015 09:13 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > biovecs has become immutable since v3.13, so it isn't necessary
> > > > to allocate biovecs for the new cloned bios, then we can save
> > > > one extra biovecs allocation/copy, and the allocation is often
> > > > not fixed-length and a bit more expensive.
> > > >
> > > > For example, if the 'max_sectors_kb' of null blk's queue is set
> > > > as 16(32 sectors) via sysfs just for making more splits, this patch
> > > > can increase throught about ~70% in the sequential read test over
> > > > null_blk(direct io, bs: 1M).
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd be curious how this compares to before we did the splitting, not
> > > exceeding the limits through bio_add_page() instead?
> >
> > Let me show these test results:
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > kernel                                                    | throught
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150916                   | bw=12227MB/s, iops=12227
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 4.3.0-rc1-next-20150916 with patch | bw=21011MB/s, iops=21011
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > v4.2                                                       |
> > bw=18959MB/s, iops=18958
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > So from the above, looks this patch is kind of fix for performance
> > regression
> > introduced by 54efd50bfd(block: make generic_make_request handle
> > arbitrarily sized bios), :-)
>
> So that's 1MB user IO, and 16KB device limit, correct? If that is the
> case, then the results make sense. And looks like we're still ahead of
> the older bio_add_page() approach, which is what I mostly cared about.
> Thanks! I'll apply this for -rc2.

Hand applied, as it didn't apply with the blk-merge.c warning fix at all 
(against for-linus). Please double check:

http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-linus&id=52cc6eead9095e2faf2ec7afc013aa3af1f01ac5

--
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/