From: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
To: colyli@suse.de
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] RAID1: a new I/O barrier implementation to remove resync window
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:22:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170216022222.73xmrd7lujkpns2x@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1487176523-109075-1-git-send-email-colyli@suse.de>
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:35:22AM +0800, colyli@suse.de wrote:
> 'Commit 79ef3a8aa1cb ("raid1: Rewrite the implementation of iobarrier.")'
> introduces a sliding resync window for raid1 I/O barrier, this idea limits
> I/O barriers to happen only inside a slidingresync window, for regular
> I/Os out of this resync window they don't need to wait for barrier any
> more. On large raid1 device, it helps a lot to improve parallel writing
> I/O throughput when there are background resync I/Os performing at
> same time.
>
> The idea of sliding resync widow is awesome, but code complexity is a
> challenge. Sliding resync window requires several veriables to work
> collectively, this is complexed and very hard to make it work correctly.
> Just grep "Fixes: 79ef3a8aa1" in kernel git log, there are 8 more patches
> to fix the original resync window patch. This is not the end, any further
> related modification may easily introduce more regreassion.
>
> Therefore I decide to implement a much simpler raid1 I/O barrier, by
> removing resync window code, I believe life will be much easier.
>
> The brief idea of the simpler barrier is,
> - Do not maintain a logbal unique resync window
> - Use multiple hash buckets to reduce I/O barrier conflictions, regular
> I/O only has to wait for a resync I/O when both them have same barrier
> bucket index, vice versa.
> - I/O barrier can be recuded to an acceptable number if there are enought
> barrier buckets
>
> Here I explain how the barrier buckets are designed,
> - BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE
> The whole LBA address space of a raid1 device is divided into multiple
> barrier units, by the size of BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE.
> Bio request won't go across border of barrier unit size, that means
> maximum bio size is BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE<<9 (64MB) in bytes.
> For random I/O 64MB is large enough for both read and write requests,
> for sequential I/O considering underlying block layer may merge them
> into larger requests, 64MB is still good enough.
> Neil also points out that for resync operation, "we want the resync to
> move from region to region fairly quickly so that the slowness caused
> by having to synchronize with the resync is averaged out over a fairly
> small time frame". For full speed resync, 64MB should take less then 1
> second. When resync is competing with other I/O, it could take up a few
> minutes. Therefore 64MB size is fairly good range for resync.
>
> - BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR
> There are BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR buckets in total, which is defined by,
> #define BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR_BITS (PAGE_SHIFT - 2)
> #define BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR (1<<BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR_BITS)
> this patch makes the bellowed members of struct r1conf from integer
> to array of integers,
> - int nr_pending;
> - int nr_waiting;
> - int nr_queued;
> - int barrier;
> + int *nr_pending;
> + int *nr_waiting;
> + int *nr_queued;
> + int *barrier;
> number of the array elements is defined as BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR. For 4KB
> kernel space page size, (PAGE_SHIFT - 2) indecates there are 1024 I/O
> barrier buckets, and each array of integers occupies single memory page.
> 1024 means for a request which is smaller than the I/O barrier unit size
> has ~0.1% chance to wait for resync to pause, which is quite a small
> enough fraction. Also requesting single memory page is more friendly to
> kernel page allocator than larger memory size.
>
> - I/O barrier bucket is indexed by bio start sector
> If multiple I/O requests hit different I/O barrier units, they only need
> to compete I/O barrier with other I/Os which hit the same I/O barrier
> bucket index with each other. The index of a barrier bucket which a
> bio should look for is calculated by sector_to_idx() which is defined
> in raid1.h as an inline function,
> static inline int sector_to_idx(sector_t sector)
> {
> return hash_long(sector >> BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_BITS,
> BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR_BITS);
> }
> Here sector_nr is the start sector number of a bio.
>
> - Single bio won't go across boundary of a I/O barrier unit
> If a request goes across boundary of barrier unit, it will be split. A
> bio may be split in raid1_make_request() or raid1_sync_request(), if
> sectors returned by align_to_barrier_unit_end() is small than original
> bio size.
>
> Comparing to single sliding resync window,
> - Currently resync I/O grows linearly, therefore regular and resync I/O
> will have confliction within a single barrier units. So the I/O
> behavior is similar to single sliding resync window.
> - But a barrier unit bucket is shared by all barrier units with identical
> barrier uinit index, the probability of confliction might be higher
> than single sliding resync window, in condition that writing I/Os
> always hit barrier units which have identical barrier bucket indexs with
> the resync I/Os. This is a very rare condition in real I/O work loads,
> I cannot imagine how it could happen in practice.
> - Therefore we can achieve a good enough low confliction rate with much
> simpler barrier algorithm and implementation.
>
> There are two changes should be noticed,
> - In raid1d(), I change the code to decrease conf->nr_pending[idx] into
> single loop, it looks like this,
> spin_lock_irqsave(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> conf->nr_queued[idx]--;
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> This change generates more spin lock operations, but in next patch of
> this patch set, it will be replaced by a single line code,
> atomic_dec(&conf->nr_queueud[idx]);
> So we don't need to worry about spin lock cost here.
> - Mainline raid1 code split original raid1_make_request() into
> raid1_read_request() and raid1_write_request(). If the original bio
> goes across an I/O barrier unit size, this bio will be split before
> calling raid1_read_request() or raid1_write_request(), this change
> the code logic more simple and clear.
> - In this patch wait_barrier() is moved from raid1_make_request() to
> raid1_write_request(). In raid_read_request(), original wait_barrier()
> is replaced by raid1_read_request().
> The differnece is wait_read_barrier() only waits if array is frozen,
> using different barrier function in different code path makes the code
> more clean and easy to read.
> Changelog
> V3:
> - Rebase the patch against latest upstream kernel code.
> - Many fixes by review comments from Neil,
> - Back to use pointers to replace arraries in struct r1conf
> - Remove total_barriers from struct r1conf
> - Add more patch comments to explain how/why the values of
> BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE and BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR are decided.
> - Use get_unqueued_pending() to replace get_all_pendings() and
> get_all_queued()
> - Increase bucket number from 512 to 1024
> - Change code comments format by review from Shaohua.
> V2:
> - Use bio_split() to split the orignal bio if it goes across barrier unit
> bounday, to make the code more simple, by suggestion from Shaohua and
> Neil.
> - Use hash_long() to replace original linear hash, to avoid a possible
> confilict between resync I/O and sequential write I/O, by suggestion from
> Shaohua.
> - Add conf->total_barriers to record barrier depth, which is used to
> control number of parallel sync I/O barriers, by suggestion from Shaohua.
> - In V1 patch the bellowed barrier buckets related members in r1conf are
> allocated in memory page. To make the code more simple, V2 patch moves
> the memory space into struct r1conf, like this,
> - int nr_pending;
> - int nr_waiting;
> - int nr_queued;
> - int barrier;
> + int nr_pending[BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR];
> + int nr_waiting[BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR];
> + int nr_queued[BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR];
> + int barrier[BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR];
> This change is by the suggestion from Shaohua.
> - Remove some inrelavent code comments, by suggestion from Guoqing.
> - Add a missing wait_barrier() before jumping to retry_write, in
> raid1_make_write_request().
> V1:
> - Original RFC patch for comments
Looks good, two minor issues.
>
> -static void raid1_read_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
> - struct r1bio *r1_bio)
> +static void raid1_read_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio)
> {
> struct r1conf *conf = mddev->private;
> struct raid1_info *mirror;
> + struct r1bio *r1_bio;
> struct bio *read_bio;
> struct bitmap *bitmap = mddev->bitmap;
> const int op = bio_op(bio);
> @@ -1083,7 +1101,34 @@ static void raid1_read_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
> int max_sectors;
> int rdisk;
>
> - wait_barrier(conf, bio);
> + /*
> + * Still need barrier for READ in case that whole
> + * array is frozen.
> + */
> + wait_read_barrier(conf, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector);
> + bitmap = mddev->bitmap;
> +
> + /*
> + * make_request() can abort the operation when read-ahead is being
> + * used and no empty request is available.
> + *
> + */
> + r1_bio = mempool_alloc(conf->r1bio_pool, GFP_NOIO);
> + r1_bio->master_bio = bio;
> + r1_bio->sectors = bio_sectors(bio);
> + r1_bio->state = 0;
> + r1_bio->mddev = mddev;
> + r1_bio->sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
This part looks unnecessary complicated. If you change raid1_make_request to
something like __raid1_make_reques, add a new raid1_make_request and do bio
split there, then call __raid1_make_request for each splitted bio, then you
don't need to duplicate the r1_bio allocation parts for read/write.
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.h b/drivers/md/raid1.h
> index c52ef42..d3faf30 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.h
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.h
> @@ -1,6 +1,14 @@
> #ifndef _RAID1_H
> #define _RAID1_H
>
> +/* each barrier unit size is 64MB fow now
> + * note: it must be larger than RESYNC_DEPTH
> + */
> +#define BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_BITS 17
> +#define BARRIER_UNIT_SECTOR_SIZE (1<<17)
> +#define BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR_BITS (PAGE_SHIFT - 2)
maybe write this as (PAGE_SHIFT - ilog2(sizeof(int)))? To be honest, I don't
think it really matters if the array is PAGE_SIZE length, maybe just specify a
const here.
Thanks,
Shaohua
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-16 2:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-15 16:35 [PATCH V3 1/2] RAID1: a new I/O barrier implementation to remove resync window colyli
2017-02-15 16:35 ` [PATCH V3 2/2] RAID1: avoid unnecessary spin locks in I/O barrier code colyli
2017-02-15 17:15 ` Coly Li
2017-02-16 2:25 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-17 18:42 ` Coly Li
2017-02-16 7:04 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-17 7:56 ` Coly Li
2017-02-17 18:35 ` Coly Li
2017-02-16 2:22 ` Shaohua Li [this message]
2017-02-16 17:05 ` [PATCH V3 1/2] RAID1: a new I/O barrier implementation to remove resync window Coly Li
2017-02-17 12:40 ` Coly Li
2017-02-16 7:04 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-17 6:56 ` Coly Li
2017-02-19 23:50 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-20 2:51 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-20 7:04 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-20 8:07 ` Coly Li
2017-02-20 8:30 ` Coly Li
2017-02-20 18:14 ` Wols Lists
2017-02-21 11:30 ` Coly Li
2017-02-21 19:20 ` Wols Lists
2017-02-21 20:16 ` Coly Li
2017-02-21 0:29 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-21 9:45 ` Coly Li
2017-02-21 17:45 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-21 20:09 ` Coly Li
2017-02-23 5:54 ` Coly Li
2017-02-23 17:34 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-23 19:31 ` Coly Li
2017-02-23 19:58 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-24 17:02 ` Coly Li
2017-02-24 10:19 ` 王金浦
2017-02-28 19:42 ` Shaohua Li
2017-03-01 17:01 ` 王金浦
2017-02-23 23:14 ` NeilBrown
2017-02-24 17:06 ` Coly Li
2017-02-24 17:17 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-24 18:57 ` Coly Li
2017-02-24 19:02 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-24 19:19 ` Coly Li
2017-02-17 19:41 ` Shaohua Li
2017-02-18 2:40 ` Coly Li
2017-02-19 23:42 ` 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=20170216022222.73xmrd7lujkpns2x@kernel.org \
--to=shli@kernel.org \
--cc=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=gqjiang@suse.com \
--cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
/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.