Re: [PATCH for-6.8/block] block: support to account io_ticks precisely

[Yu Kuai]

Hi,

在 2024/01/15 19:38, Ming Lei 写道:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 03:13:32PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Currently, io_ticks is accounted based on sampling, specifically
> > update_io_ticks() will always account io_ticks by 1 jiffies from
> > bdev_start_io_acct()/blk_account_io_start(), and the result can be
> > inaccurate, for example(HZ is 250):
> >
> > Test script:
> > fio -filename=/dev/sda -bs=4k -rw=write -direct=1 -name=test -thinktime=4ms
> >
> > Test result: util is about 90%, while the disk is really idle.
>
> Just be curious, what is result with this patch? 0%?

No, it's not 0%, this actually depends on how many IO really start from
one jiffies and complete at the next jiffies. Given that the probability
is related to IO latency, so the result should be relatively
accurate(Around 10% in my environment). I think we can live with that
unless we improve time precision from jiffies to ns.
> > In order to account io_ticks precisely, update_io_ticks() must know if
> > there are IO inflight already, and this requires overhead slightly,
> > hence precise io accounting is disabled by default, and user can enable
> > it through sysfs entry.
> >
> > Noted that for rq-based devcie, part_stat_local_inc/dec() and
> > part_in_flight() is used to track inflight instead of iterating tags,
> > which is not supposed to be used in fast path because 'tags->lock' is
> > grabbed in blk_mq_find_and_get_req().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Changes from RFC v1:
> >   - remove the new parameter for update_io_ticks();
> >   - simplify update_io_ticks();
> >   - use swith in queue_iostats_store();
> >   - add missing part_stat_local_dec() in blk_account_io_merge_request();
> > Changes from RFC v2:
> >   - fix that precise is ignored for the first io in update_io_ticks();
> >
> >   Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block |  8 ++++--
> >   block/blk-core.c                     | 10 +++++--
> >   block/blk-merge.c                    |  3 ++
> >   block/blk-mq-debugfs.c               |  2 ++
> >   block/blk-mq.c                       | 11 +++++++-
> >   block/blk-sysfs.c                    | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >   block/blk.h                          |  1 +
> >   block/genhd.c                        |  2 +-
> >   include/linux/blk-mq.h               |  1 +
> >   include/linux/blkdev.h               |  3 ++
> >   10 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block b/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
> > index 1fe9a553c37b..79027bf2661a 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
> > +++ b/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block
> > @@ -358,8 +358,12 @@ What:		/sys/block/<disk>/queue/iostats
> >   Date:		January 2009
> >   Contact:	linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >   Description:
> > -		[RW] This file is used to control (on/off) the iostats
> > -		accounting of the disk.
> > +		[RW] This file is used to control the iostats accounting of the
> > +		disk. If this value is 0, iostats accounting is disabled; If
> > +		this value is 1, iostats accounting is enabled, but io_ticks is
> > +		accounted by sampling and the result is not accurate; If this
> > +		value is 2, iostats accounting is enabled and io_ticks is
> > +		accounted precisely, but there will be slightly more overhead.
> >   
> >   
> >   What:		/sys/block/<disk>/queue/logical_block_size
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index 9520ccab3050..c70dc311e3b7 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -954,11 +954,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iocb_bio_iopoll);
> >   void update_io_ticks(struct block_device *part, unsigned long now, bool end)
> >   {
> >   	unsigned long stamp;
> > +	bool precise = blk_queue_precise_io_stat(part->bd_queue);
> >   again:
> >   	stamp = READ_ONCE(part->bd_stamp);
> > -	if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp))) {
> > -		if (likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now)))
> > -			__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, end ? now - stamp : 1);
> > +	if (unlikely(time_after(now, stamp)) &&
> > +	    likely(try_cmpxchg(&part->bd_stamp, &stamp, now))) {
> > +		if (end || (precise && part_in_flight(part)))
> > +			__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, now - stamp);
> > +		else if (!precise)
> > +			__part_stat_add(part, io_ticks, 1);
>
> It should be better or readable to move 'bool precise' into the above branch,
> given we only need to read the flag once in each tick.
>
> Otherwise, this patch looks fine.

Thanks for your advice, will change that in next version.

Kuai
> Thanks,
> Ming
>
> .