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

[dm-devel] Reworking dm-writeboost [was: Re: staging: Add dm-writeboost]



Mike,

> We don't need to go through staging.  If the dm-writeboost target is
> designed well and provides a tangible benefit it doesn't need
> wide-spread users as justification for going in.  The users will come if
> it is implemented well.
OK.
The benefit of introducing writeboost will be documented.
1. READ often hit in page cache.
   That's what page cache is all about.
   READ cache only caches the rest that page cache couldn't cache.
2. Backing store in RAID mode crazily slow in WRITE,
   especially if it is RAID-5.
will be the points.
There is not a silver bullet as a cache software
but writeboost can fit in many situations I believe.


> Have you looked at how both dm-cache and dm-thinp handle this?
> Userspace takes care to write all zeroes to the start of the metadata
> device before the first use in the kernel.
Zeroing the first one sector is a sign of needing formatting
sounds nice to writeboost too.
It's simple and I like it.


> Could be the log structured nature of writeboost is very different.
> I'll review this closer tomorrow.
I should mention about the big design difference
between writeboost and dm-cache
to help you understand the nature of writeboost.

Writeboost doesn't have segregated metadata device like dm-cache does.
Data and metadata coexists in the same cache device.
That is what log-structured is.
Data and its relevant metadata are packed in a log segment
and written to cache device atomically
which makes writeboost reliable and fast.
So, 
> could be factored out.  I haven't yet looked close enough at that aspect
> of writeboost code to know if it could benefit from the existing
> bio-prison code or persistent-data library at all.  writeboost would
> obviously need a new space map type, etc.
what makes sense to dm-cache could not make sense to writeboost.
At a simple look, they don't fit to the design of writeboost.
But I will investigate these functionality further in later time.


> sounds like a step in the right direction.  Plus you can share the cache
> by layering multiple linear devices ontop of the dm-writeboost device.
They are theoretically different but it is actually a trade-off.
But it is not a big problem compared to fitting to device-mapper.


> Also managing dm-writeboost devices with lvm2 is a priority, so any
> interface similarities dm-writeboost has with dm-cache will be
> beneficial.
It sounds really good to me.
Huge benefit.


Akira

n 9/18/13 5:59 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17 2013 at  8:43am -0400,
> Akira Hayakawa <ruby wktk gmail com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, Mike
>>
>> There are two designs in my mind
>> regarding the formatting cache.
>>
>> You said
>>>   administer the writeboost devices.  There is no need for this.  Just
>>>   have a normal DM target whose .ctr takes care of validation and
>>>   determines whether a device needs formatting, etc.  
>> makes me wonder how I format the cache device.
>>
>>
>> There are two choices for formatting cache and create a writeboost device
>> standing on the point of removing writeboost-mgr existing in the current design.
>> I will explain them from how the interface will look like.
>>
>> (1) dmsetup create myDevice ... "... $backing_path $cache_path"
>> which will returns error if the superblock of the given cache device
>> is invalid and needs formatting.
>> And then the user formats the cache device by some userland tool.
>>
>> (2) dmsetup create myDevice ... "... $backing_path $cache_path $do_format"
>> which also returns error if the superblock of the given cache device
>> is invalid and needs formatting when $do_format is 0.
>> And then user formats the cache device by setting $do_format to 1 and try again.
>>
>> There pros and cons about the design tradeoffs:
>> - (i)  (1) is simpler. do_format parameter in (2) doesn't seem to be sane.
>>        (1) is like the interfaces of filesystems where dmsetup create is like mounting a filesystem.
>> - (ii) (2) can implement everything in kernel. It can gather all the information
>>        about how the superblock in one place, kernel code.
>>
>> Excuse for the current design:
>> - The reason I design writeboost-mgr is almost regarding (ii) above.
>>   writeboost-mgr has a message "format_cache_device" and
>>   writeboost-format-cache userland command kicks the message to format cache.
>>
>> - writeboost-mgr has also a message "resume_cache"
>>   that validates and builds a in-memory structure according to the cache binding to given $cache_id
>>   and user later dmsetup create the writeboost device with the $cache_id.
>>   However, resuming the cache metadata should be done under .ctr like dm-cache does
>>   and should not relate LV to create and cache by external cache_id
>>   is what I realized by looking at the code of dm-cache which
>>   calls dm_cache_metadata_open() routines under .ctr .
> 
> Right, any in-core structures should be allocated in .ctr()
> 
>> writeboost-mgr is something like smell of over-engineering but
>> is useful for simplifying the design for above reasons.
>>
>>
>> Which do you think better?
> 
> Have you looked at how both dm-cache and dm-thinp handle this?
> Userspace takes care to write all zeroes to the start of the metadata
> device before the first use in the kernel.
> 
> In the kernel, see __superblock_all_zeroes(), the superblock on the
> metadata device is checked to see whether it is all 0s or not.  If it is
> all 0s then the kernel code knows it needs to format (writing the
> superblock, etc).
> 
> I see no reason why dm-writeboost couldn't use the same design.
> 
> Also, have you looked at forking dm-cache as a starting point for
> dm-writeboost?  It is an option, not yet clear if it'd help you as there
> is likely a fair amount of work picking through code that isn't
> relevant.  But it'd be nice to have the writeboost code follow the same
> basic design principles.
> 
> Like I mentioned before, especially if the log structured block code
> could be factored out.  I haven't yet looked close enough at that aspect
> of writeboost code to know if it could benefit from the existing
> bio-prison code or persistent-data library at all.  writeboost would
> obviously need a new space map type, etc.
> 
> Could be the log structured nature of writeboost is very different.
> I'll review this closer tomorrow.
> 


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