From: Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, colyli@suse.de, ncroxon@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [MD PATCH v2 1/1] Use a new variable to count flighting sync requests
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 01:18:37 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <25286079.2019909.1493356717905.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170427210516.key5efxmifbxd3sz@kernel.org>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shaohua Li" <shli@kernel.org>
> To: "Xiao Ni" <xni@redhat.com>
> Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, colyli@suse.de, ncroxon@redhat.com
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 5:05:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD PATCH v2 1/1] Use a new variable to count flighting sync requests
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 01:58:01PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 04:28:49PM +0800, Xiao Ni wrote:
> > > In new barrier codes, raise_barrier waits if conf->nr_pending[idx] is not
> > > zero.
> > > After all the conditions are true, the resync request can go on be
> > > handled. But
> > > it adds conf->nr_pending[idx] again. The next resync request hit the same
> > > bucket
> > > idx need to wait the resync request which is submitted before. The
> > > performance
> > > of resync/recovery is degraded.
> > > So we should use a new variable to count sync requests which are in
> > > flight.
> > >
> > > I did a simple test:
> > > 1. Without the patch, create a raid1 with two disks. The resync speed:
> > > Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s
> > > avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util
> > > sdb 0.00 0.00 166.00 0.00 10.38 0.00
> > > 128.00 0.03 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.19 3.20
> > > sdc 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.00 0.00 10.38
> > > 128.00 0.96 5.77 0.00 5.77 5.75 95.50
> > > 2. With the patch, the result is:
> > > sdb 2214.00 0.00 766.00 0.00 185.69 0.00
> > > 496.46 2.80 3.66 3.66 0.00 1.03 79.10
> > > sdc 0.00 2205.00 0.00 769.00 0.00 186.44
> > > 496.52 5.25 6.84 0.00 6.84 1.30 100.10
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com>
> >
> > applied, thanks!
> > > ---
> > > drivers/md/raid1.c | 5 +++--
> > > drivers/md/raid1.h | 1 +
> > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > > index a34f587..ff5ee53 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > > @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ static void raise_barrier(struct r1conf *conf,
> > > sector_t sector_nr)
> > > atomic_read(&conf->barrier[idx]) < RESYNC_DEPTH,
> > > conf->resync_lock);
> > >
> > > - atomic_inc(&conf->nr_pending[idx]);
> > > + atomic_inc(&conf->nr_sync_pending);
> > > spin_unlock_irq(&conf->resync_lock);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -880,7 +880,7 @@ static void lower_barrier(struct r1conf *conf,
> > > sector_t sector_nr)
> > > BUG_ON(atomic_read(&conf->barrier[idx]) <= 0);
> > >
> > > atomic_dec(&conf->barrier[idx]);
> > > - atomic_dec(&conf->nr_pending[idx]);
> > > + atomic_dec(&conf->nr_sync_pending);
> > > wake_up(&conf->wait_barrier);
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -1017,6 +1017,7 @@ static int get_unqueued_pending(struct r1conf
> > > *conf)
> > > {
> > > int idx, ret;
> > >
> > > + ret = atomic_read(&conf->nr_sync_pending);
> > > for (ret = 0, idx = 0; idx < BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR; idx++)
>
> actually I deleted the 'ret = 0'
Sorry, I didn't notice this. I need more attention. And thanks
for the modification.
Xiao
>
> > > ret += atomic_read(&conf->nr_pending[idx]) -
> > > atomic_read(&conf->nr_queued[idx]);
> > > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.h b/drivers/md/raid1.h
> > > index dd22a37..1668f22 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/md/raid1.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.h
> > > @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct r1conf {
> > > */
> > > wait_queue_head_t wait_barrier;
> > > spinlock_t resync_lock;
> > > + atomic_t nr_sync_pending;
> > > atomic_t *nr_pending;
> > > atomic_t *nr_waiting;
> > > atomic_t *nr_queued;
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> > >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-28 5:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-27 8:28 [MD PATCH v2 1/1] Use a new variable to count flighting sync requests Xiao Ni
2017-04-27 8:36 ` Coly Li
2017-04-27 20:58 ` Shaohua Li
2017-04-27 21:05 ` Shaohua Li
2017-04-28 5:18 ` Xiao Ni [this message]
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=25286079.2019909.1493356717905.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com \
--to=xni@redhat.com \
--cc=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ncroxon@redhat.com \
--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.