From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
"lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org"
<lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <Linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM ATTEND][LSF/MM TOPIC] Multipath redesign
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:42:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160113154243.GA2563@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56962BDB.4080509@dev.mellanox.co.il>
On Wed, Jan 13 2016 at 5:50am -0500,
Sagi Grimberg <sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> Another (adjacent) topic is multipath performance with blk-mq.
>
> As I said, I've been looking at nvme multipathing support and
> initial measurements show huge contention on the multipath lock
> which really defeats the entire point of blk-mq...
>
> I have yet to report this as my work is still in progress. I'm not sure
> if it's a topic on it's own but I'd love to talk about that as well...
This sounds like you aren't actually using blk-mq for the top-level DM
multipath queue. And your findings contradicts what I heard from Keith
Busch when I developed request-based DM's blk-mq support, from commit
bfebd1cdb497 ("dm: add full blk-mq support to request-based DM"):
"Just providing a performance update. All my fio tests are getting
roughly equal performance whether accessed through the raw block
device or the multipath device mapper (~470k IOPS). I could only push
~20% of the raw iops through dm before this conversion, so this latest
tree is looking really solid from a performance standpoint."
> >But in the end we should be able to do strip down the current (rather
> >complex) multipath-tools to just handle topology changes; everything
> >else will be done internally.
>
> I'd love to see that happening.
Honestly, this needs to be a hardened plan that is hashed out _before_
LSF and then findings presented. It is a complete waste of time to
debate nuance with Hannes in a one hour session.
Until I implemented the above DM core changes hch and Hannes were very
enthusiastic to throw away the existing DM multipath and multipath-tools
code (the old .request_fn queue lock bottleneck being the straw that
broke the camel's back). Seems Hannes' enthusiasm hasn't tempered but
his hand-waving is still in full form.
Details matter. I have no doubts aspects of what we have could be
improved but I really fail to see how moving multipathing to blk-mq is a
constructive way forward.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: snitzer@redhat.com (Mike Snitzer)
Subject: [LSF/MM ATTEND][LSF/MM TOPIC] Multipath redesign
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:42:43 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160113154243.GA2563@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56962BDB.4080509@dev.mellanox.co.il>
On Wed, Jan 13 2016 at 5:50am -0500,
Sagi Grimberg <sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
> Another (adjacent) topic is multipath performance with blk-mq.
>
> As I said, I've been looking at nvme multipathing support and
> initial measurements show huge contention on the multipath lock
> which really defeats the entire point of blk-mq...
>
> I have yet to report this as my work is still in progress. I'm not sure
> if it's a topic on it's own but I'd love to talk about that as well...
This sounds like you aren't actually using blk-mq for the top-level DM
multipath queue. And your findings contradicts what I heard from Keith
Busch when I developed request-based DM's blk-mq support, from commit
bfebd1cdb497 ("dm: add full blk-mq support to request-based DM"):
"Just providing a performance update. All my fio tests are getting
roughly equal performance whether accessed through the raw block
device or the multipath device mapper (~470k IOPS). I could only push
~20% of the raw iops through dm before this conversion, so this latest
tree is looking really solid from a performance standpoint."
> >But in the end we should be able to do strip down the current (rather
> >complex) multipath-tools to just handle topology changes; everything
> >else will be done internally.
>
> I'd love to see that happening.
Honestly, this needs to be a hardened plan that is hashed out _before_
LSF and then findings presented. It is a complete waste of time to
debate nuance with Hannes in a one hour session.
Until I implemented the above DM core changes hch and Hannes were very
enthusiastic to throw away the existing DM multipath and multipath-tools
code (the old .request_fn queue lock bottleneck being the straw that
broke the camel's back). Seems Hannes' enthusiasm hasn't tempered but
his hand-waving is still in full form.
Details matter. I have no doubts aspects of what we have could be
improved but I really fail to see how moving multipathing to blk-mq is a
constructive way forward.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-13 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-13 9:10 [LSF/MM ATTEND][LSF/MM TOPIC] Multipath redesign Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-13 10:50 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 10:50 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 11:46 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-13 11:46 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-13 15:42 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2016-01-13 15:42 ` Mike Snitzer
2016-01-13 16:06 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 16:06 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 16:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2016-01-13 16:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2016-01-13 16:30 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 16:30 ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 16:18 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-13 16:18 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-13 16:54 ` Mike Snitzer
2016-01-13 16:54 ` Mike Snitzer
2016-01-13 11:08 ` [dm-devel] " Alasdair G Kergon
2016-01-13 11:17 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-13 11:25 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2016-01-13 17:52 ` Benjamin Marzinski
2016-01-14 7:25 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-14 19:09 ` Bart Van Assche
2016-01-15 7:12 ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-21 0:38 ` Benjamin Marzinski
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=20160113154243.GA2563@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=Linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il \
/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.