[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC][PATCH] dm: improve read performance



On Thursday, March 17, 2011 06:38:46 pm Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17 2011 at  1:12am -0400,
> 
> Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth suse de> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 07, 2011 03:40:01 pm Mustafa Mesanovic wrote:
> > > On 12/27/2010 01:23 PM, Mustafa Mesanovic wrote:
> > > > On Mon December 27 2010 12:54:59 Neil Brown wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:19:55 +0100 Mustafa Mesanovic
> > > >> 
> > > >> <mume linux vnet ibm com>  wrote:
> > > >>> From: Mustafa Mesanovic<mume linux vnet ibm com>
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> A short explanation in prior: in this case we have "stacked" dm
> > > >>> devices. Two multipathed luns combined together to one striped
> > > >>> logical volume.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> I/O throughput degradation happens at __bio_add_page when bio's get
> > > >>> checked upon max_sectors. In this setup max_sectors is always set
> > > >>> to 8 ->  what is 4KiB.
> > > >>> A standalone striped logical volume on luns which are not
> > > >>> multipathed do not have the problem: the logical volume will take
> > > >>> over the max_sectors from luns below.
> > > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > >>> Using the patch improves read I/O up to 3x. In this specific case
> > > >>> from 600MiB/s up to 1800MiB/s.
> > > >> 
> > > >> and using this patch will cause IO to fail sometimes.
> > > >> If an IO request which is larger than a page crosses a device
> > > >> boundary in the underlying e.g. RAID0, the RAID0 will return an
> > > >> error as such things should not happen - they are prevented by
> > > >> merge_bvec_fn.
> > > >> 
> > > >> If merge_bvec_fn is not being honoured, then you MUST limit requests
> > > >> to a single entry iovec of at most one page.
> > > >> 
> > > >> NeilBrown
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you for that hint, I will try to write a merge_bvec_fn for
> > > > dm-stripe.c which solves the problem, if that is ok?
> > > > 
> > > > Mustafa Mesanovic
> > > 
> > > Now here my new suggestion to fix this issue, what is your opinion?
> > > I tested this with different setups, and it worked fine and I had
> > > very good performance improvements.
> > 
> > Some minor style nitpicks.
> > 
> > > [RFC][PATCH] dm: improve read performance - v2
> > > 
> > > This patch adds a merge_fn for the dm stripe target. This merge_fn
> > > prevents dm_set_device_limits() setting the max_sectors to 4KiB
> > > (PAGE_SIZE). (As in a prior patch already mentioned.)
> > > Now the read performance improved up to 3x higher compared to before.
> > > 
> > > What happened before:
> > > I/O throughput degradation happened at __bio_add_page() when bio's got
> > > checked at the very beginning upon max_sectors. In this setup
> > > max_sectors is always set to 8. So bio's entered the dm target with a
> > > max of 4KiB.
> > > 
> > > Now dm-stripe target will have its own merge_fn so max_sectors will not
> > > pushed down to 8 (4KiB), and bio's can get bigger than 4KiB.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mustafa Mesanovic<mume linux vnet ibm com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >   dm-stripe.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-stripe.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/md/dm-stripe.c	2011-02-28 
10:23:37.000000000
> > > +0100 +++ linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-stripe.c	2011-02-28
> > > 10:24:29.000000000 +0100 @@ -396,6 +396,29 @@
> > > 
> > >   	blk_limits_io_opt(limits, chunk_size * sc->stripes);
> > >   
> > >   }
> > > 
> > > +static int stripe_merge(struct dm_target *ti, struct bvec_merge_data
> > > *bvm, +			struct bio_vec *biovec, int max_size)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct stripe_c *sc = (struct stripe_c *) ti->private;
> > > +	sector_t offset, chunk;
> > > +	uint32_t stripe;
> > > +	struct request_queue *q;
> > > +
> > > +	offset = bvm->bi_sector - ti->begin;
> > > +	chunk = offset>>  sc->chunk_shift;
> > > +	stripe = sector_div(chunk, sc->stripes);
> > > +
> > > +	if (!bdev_get_queue(sc->stripe[stripe].dev->bdev)->merge_bvec_fn)
> > > +			return max_size;
> > > +
> > > +	bvm->bi_bdev = sc->stripe[stripe].dev->bdev;
> > > +	q = bdev_get_queue(bvm->bi_bdev);
> > 
> > Initializing q at the top would simplify the check fro merge_bvec_fn
> > above.
> > 
> > > +	bvm->bi_sector = sc->stripe[stripe].physical_start +
> > > +			(chunk<<  sc->chunk_shift) + (offset&  sc->chunk_mask);
> > > +
> > 
> > Can this be written as
> > 
> > bvm->bi_sector = sc->stripe[stripe].physical_start +
> > 
> > 			bvm->bi_sector - ti->begin;
> > 
> > or even better
> > bvm->bi_sector = sc->stripe[stripe].physical_start +
> > 
> > 			dm_target_offset(ti, bvm->bi_sector);
> > > 
> > > +	return min(max_size, q->merge_bvec_fn(q, bvm, biovec));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > 
> > >   static struct target_type stripe_target = {
> > >   
> > >   	.name   = "striped",
> > >   	.version = {1, 3, 1},
> > > 
> > > @@ -403,6 +426,7 @@
> > > 
> > >   	.ctr    = stripe_ctr,
> > >   	.dtr    = stripe_dtr,
> > >   	.map    = stripe_map,
> > > 
> > > +	.merge  = stripe_merge,
> > > 
> > >   	.end_io = stripe_end_io,
> > >   	.status = stripe_status,
> > >   	.iterate_devices = stripe_iterate_devices,
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth suse de>
> 
> You reviewed an old version, v4 was posted to dm-devel and is
> available here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/639801/
> 

oops.. sorry.

> It should address all your concerns.

Yes, it does.

Thanks
Nikanth


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]