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

Re: [Cluster-devel] DLM thoughts - multi threaded recvd



Steven Whitehouse wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 15:01 +0000, Patrick Caulfield wrote:
>> One of the things that Andrew Morton commented on when taking the DLM was that that there is a single dlm_recvd process (and sendd
>> too) processing incoming requests and it could become a bottleneck on large systems.
>>
>> So, I've been thinking how to make this scale a little better and have come up with several things.
>>
>> 1. How do we decide how many threads to start?
>>
>> My first thought was to start one per CPU. But how do we cope with CPU hotplug events (if we do at all). This
>> is also slightly wasteful in a two-node SMP cluster where you could have 2 machines each with 4 cores each running 4 dlm_recvd
>> threads with only really work for 1 per machine.  We can't split up messages from one machine over threads because the packets may
>> be fragmented *
>>
>> Is there a reasonable API in the kernel for getting the (current) number of CPUs in a system ?
>>
> Not that I know of, although there are two different "numbers of CPUs" I
> think, one being the current number and one being the max number. I had
> the same problem when I was looking into hashing the rwlocks for the
> glock hash table and settled for using the max number and hoping for the
> best, though I think you need to be more accurate than I did.
> 
> As an alternative suggestion - is it possible to do this without any
> threads at all? In that case the receive processing would run in softirq
> context, and on the same CPU that did the tcp receive processing. That
> would potentially save two context switches per message delivered.

I'm not sure softirq would be appropriate as there is a good chance that the DLM functions might need to sleep. A workqueue might be
an idea though.

> I'm not so sure that its worth having the extra threads unless you are
> able to bind each thread to a CPU and ensure that it only processes
> packets delivered on that CPU.
> 
> Are you just talking about reading here? I assume that the accept per of
> it isn't going to be a problem here so that could potentially stay as it
> is?
> 
> There is an example of something similar to what I'm suggesting in
> net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c:xs_tcp_data_recv() and xs_tcp_data_ready().
> 
>> 2. Do we need an additional sysfs parameter to the DLM that tells it how many threads to start which defaults
>> to the number of CPUs in the system?
>>
>>
>> 3. Is it worth multi-threading dlm_sendd too?
>>
>> I'm not sure it is. dlm_sendd's job is very simple...to put stuff on the TCP (or SCTP) send queue. If that queue is full then the
>> request is simply requeued inside the DLM. It's not like dlm_recvd which does actual locking operations.
>>
> Its single threaded anyway as soon as it hits the tcp send queue. I
> don't know if thats true of SCTP as well.


Ok, I might as well leave that then, thanks.

-- 

patrick


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