diff mbox series

[v8,2/9] block/mq-deadline: Only use zone locking if necessary

Message ID 20230811213604.548235-3-bvanassche@acm.org
State New
Headers show
Series Improve performance for zoned UFS devices | expand

Commit Message

Bart Van Assche Aug. 11, 2023, 9:35 p.m. UTC 
Measurements have shown that limiting the queue depth to one per zone for
zoned writes has a significant negative performance impact on zoned UFS
devices. Hence this patch that disables zone locking by the mq-deadline
scheduler if the storage controller preserves the command order. This
patch is based on the following assumptions:
- It happens infrequently that zoned write requests are reordered by the
  block layer.
- The I/O priority of all write requests is the same per zone.
- Either no I/O scheduler is used or an I/O scheduler is used that
  serializes write requests per zone.

Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
---
 block/mq-deadline.c | 14 ++++++++------
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

Comments

Bart Van Assche Aug. 14, 2023, 5 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 8/14/23 05:33, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 8/12/23 06:35, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> @@ -934,7 +936,7 @@ static void dd_finish_request(struct request *rq)
>>   
>>   	atomic_inc(&per_prio->stats.completed);
>>   
>> -	if (blk_queue_is_zoned(q)) {
>> +	if (rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock) {
> 
> This is all nice and simple ! However, an inline helper to check
> rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock would be nice. E.g.
> blk_queue_use_zone_write_lock() ?

Hi Damien,

Do you perhaps want me to introduce a function that does nothing else than
returning the value of q->limits.use_zone_write_lock? I'm asking this because
recently I have seen a fair number of patches that remove functions that do
nothing else than returning the value of a single member variable.

Thanks,

Bart.
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/block/mq-deadline.c b/block/mq-deadline.c
index f958e79277b8..5c2fc4003bc0 100644
--- a/block/mq-deadline.c
+++ b/block/mq-deadline.c
@@ -353,7 +353,7 @@  deadline_fifo_request(struct deadline_data *dd, struct dd_per_prio *per_prio,
 		return NULL;
 
 	rq = rq_entry_fifo(per_prio->fifo_list[data_dir].next);
-	if (data_dir == DD_READ || !blk_queue_is_zoned(rq->q))
+	if (data_dir == DD_READ || !rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock)
 		return rq;
 
 	/*
@@ -398,7 +398,7 @@  deadline_next_request(struct deadline_data *dd, struct dd_per_prio *per_prio,
 	if (!rq)
 		return NULL;
 
-	if (data_dir == DD_READ || !blk_queue_is_zoned(rq->q))
+	if (data_dir == DD_READ || !rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock)
 		return rq;
 
 	/*
@@ -526,8 +526,9 @@  static struct request *__dd_dispatch_request(struct deadline_data *dd,
 	}
 
 	/*
-	 * For a zoned block device, if we only have writes queued and none of
-	 * them can be dispatched, rq will be NULL.
+	 * For a zoned block device that requires write serialization, if we
+	 * only have writes queued and none of them can be dispatched, rq will
+	 * be NULL.
 	 */
 	if (!rq)
 		return NULL;
@@ -552,7 +553,8 @@  static struct request *__dd_dispatch_request(struct deadline_data *dd,
 	/*
 	 * If the request needs its target zone locked, do it.
 	 */
-	blk_req_zone_write_lock(rq);
+	if (rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock)
+		blk_req_zone_write_lock(rq);
 	rq->rq_flags |= RQF_STARTED;
 	return rq;
 }
@@ -934,7 +936,7 @@  static void dd_finish_request(struct request *rq)
 
 	atomic_inc(&per_prio->stats.completed);
 
-	if (blk_queue_is_zoned(q)) {
+	if (rq->q->limits.use_zone_write_lock) {
 		unsigned long flags;
 
 		spin_lock_irqsave(&dd->zone_lock, flags);