Re: [PATCH for-6.8/block] block: support to account io_ticks precisely
From: Yu Kuai <hidden>
Date: 2024-02-19 09:03:58
Also in:
lkml
Hi, Ming 在 2024/01/16 17:59, Yu Kuai 写道:
Hi, Ming 在 2024/01/15 19:54, Yu Kuai 写道:quoted
Hi, 在 2024/01/15 19:38, Ming Lei 写道:quoted
On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 03:13:32PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:quoted
From: Yu Kuai <redacted> 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%?I ran some tests on null_blk and found out that this patch actually doesn't have any performance overhead, and I finially figure out that it's true even in theroy. Notice that there is a cmpxchg() in update_ticks(): update_io_ticks: stamp = part->bd_stamp; if (time_after(now, stamp)) if (try_cmpxchg()) __part_stat_add() Hence only one task can pass cmpxchg in 1 jiffies, and part_stat_add() be called at most once in 1 jiffies. Which means with this patch, part_in_flight() will also be called at most once in 1 jiffies(not per IO). And part_in_flight() once per jiffies really doesn't affect IO performance at all. Befor this cmpxchg(): part_round_stats: if (part->stamp != now) stats |= 1; part_in_flight() -> there can be lots of task here in 1 jiffies. part_round_stats_single() __part_stat_add() part->stamp = now; By the way, this cmpxchg() is added by commit 5b18b5a73760 ("block: delete part_round_stats and switch to less precise counting"), hence actually there is no need to switch to less precise counting in the first place. So I think I can just remove the switch and switch to precise io accounting by default in the next version. Please let me know what you think!
Are you still interested? And the overhead to switch to precise io accounting is: - per cpu add/dec for each IO for rq-based device; - per cpu sum for each jiffies(1-4 ms). Hence in theory, the overhead is quite small, and I already tested with null-blk, there is no change with high IO pressure. Thanks, Kuai
Thanks, Kuaiquoted
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.quoted
quoted
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 <redacted> --- 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-blockb/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/iostatsDate: January 2009 Contact: linux-block@vger.kernel.org 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_sizediff --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. Kuaiquoted
Thanks, Ming ...