From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch]raid5: make_request does less prepare wait
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 12:08:08 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140409120808.40034647@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140408040507.GA20886@kernel.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3998 bytes --]
On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 12:05:07 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> In NUMA machine, prepare_to_wait/finish_wait in make_request exposes a lot of
> contention for sequential workload (or big request size workload). For such
> workload, each bio includes several stripes. So we can just do
> prepare_to_wait/finish_wait once for the whold bio instead of every stripe.
> This reduces the lock contention completely for such workload. Random workload
> might have the similar lock contention too, but I didn't see it yet, maybe
> because my stroage is still not fast enough.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
Thanks,
this looks every sensible, except .....
> ---
> drivers/md/raid5.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/drivers/md/raid5.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/md/raid5.c 2014-04-08 09:04:20.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux/drivers/md/raid5.c 2014-04-08 09:11:08.201533487 +0800
> @@ -4552,6 +4552,8 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *m
> struct stripe_head *sh;
> const int rw = bio_data_dir(bi);
> int remaining;
> + DEFINE_WAIT(w);
> + bool do_prepare;
>
> if (unlikely(bi->bi_rw & REQ_FLUSH)) {
> md_flush_request(mddev, bi);
> @@ -4575,15 +4577,19 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *m
> bi->bi_next = NULL;
> bi->bi_phys_segments = 1; /* over-loaded to count active stripes */
>
> + prepare_to_wait(&conf->wait_for_overlap, &w, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> for (;logical_sector < last_sector; logical_sector += STRIPE_SECTORS) {
> DEFINE_WAIT(w);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Shouldn't this be removed? If so, please resubmit with that line deleted and
I'll apply the patch.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
> int previous;
> int seq;
>
> + do_prepare = false;
> retry:
> seq = read_seqcount_begin(&conf->gen_lock);
> previous = 0;
> - prepare_to_wait(&conf->wait_for_overlap, &w, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + if (do_prepare)
> + prepare_to_wait(&conf->wait_for_overlap, &w,
> + TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (unlikely(conf->reshape_progress != MaxSector)) {
> /* spinlock is needed as reshape_progress may be
> * 64bit on a 32bit platform, and so it might be
> @@ -4604,6 +4610,7 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *m
> : logical_sector >= conf->reshape_safe) {
> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> schedule();
> + do_prepare = true;
> goto retry;
> }
> }
> @@ -4640,6 +4647,7 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *m
> if (must_retry) {
> release_stripe(sh);
> schedule();
> + do_prepare = true;
> goto retry;
> }
> }
> @@ -4663,8 +4671,10 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *m
> prepare_to_wait(&conf->wait_for_overlap,
> &w, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> if (logical_sector >= mddev->suspend_lo &&
> - logical_sector < mddev->suspend_hi)
> + logical_sector < mddev->suspend_hi) {
> schedule();
> + do_prepare = true;
> + }
> goto retry;
> }
>
> @@ -4677,9 +4687,9 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *m
> md_wakeup_thread(mddev->thread);
> release_stripe(sh);
> schedule();
> + do_prepare = true;
> goto retry;
> }
> - finish_wait(&conf->wait_for_overlap, &w);
> set_bit(STRIPE_HANDLE, &sh->state);
> clear_bit(STRIPE_DELAYED, &sh->state);
> if ((bi->bi_rw & REQ_SYNC) &&
> @@ -4689,10 +4699,10 @@ static void make_request(struct mddev *m
> } else {
> /* cannot get stripe for read-ahead, just give-up */
> clear_bit(BIO_UPTODATE, &bi->bi_flags);
> - finish_wait(&conf->wait_for_overlap, &w);
> break;
> }
> }
> + finish_wait(&conf->wait_for_overlap, &w);
>
> remaining = raid5_dec_bi_active_stripes(bi);
> if (remaining == 0) {
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-09 2:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-08 4:05 [patch]raid5: make_request does less prepare wait Shaohua Li
2014-04-09 2:08 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2014-04-09 3:25 ` Shaohua Li
2014-04-09 5:23 ` NeilBrown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140409120808.40034647@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shli@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.