[Ocfs2-devel] [SUGGESSTION 1/1] OCFS2: automatic dlm hash table size

[Tao Ma <tao.ma@oracle.com>]

Hi Wengang,

Regards,
Tao

wengang wang wrote:
> backgroud:
> 	ocfs2 dlm uses a hash table to store dlm_lock_resource objects. the often used lookup is performed on the hash table.
> 
> problem:
> 	for usages that there are huge number of inodes(thus huge number of dlm_lock_resource objects) in a ocfs2 volume, the lookup performance becomes a problem. the lookup holds spin_lock which could put all others cpus into the state of aquring the spinlock. if the lock is held long enough by the lookup process, some hardware watchdog  could reboot box since it's not fed in a time(the fed has no change to be scheduled).		Why do you think a dlm res lookup can lock up cpu for such a long time 
that can lead to hardware watchdog reboot?
	I am not object to this. But do you have any test statistics that 
demonstrate your suggestion? I think people are more easy to be 
convinced if they see some exciting numbers.

> 
> 	enlarging the hash table is the way to speed up the lookup. but we don't know how large is a good size. --too small, performance is bad; too large, there is a memory waste.
> 
> suggestion:
> 	so I suggest a automatic resizing the dlm_lock_resource hash table feature. that means it can increase the size of the hash table per the number of dlm_lock_resource objects which are already in the hash table.
> 	the default(smallest) size is 16 in shift bits. when the number of dlm_lock_resource rearches 250,0000, auto-resizing is triggered and the destination size is 17. and when rearches 500,0000, resize to 18, for 1000,0000, resize to 19... though the numbers need to be discussed yet.
> 	with this we can use proper sized memory for runtime usage and keep good enough lookup performance.
So concerning the autosize, do you think of the process of rehash?

I think if you have reached 250,000 dlm entries, the rehash must hold 
the spin lock for quite a long time. And as you said above, if the 
hardware watchdog can even reboot for just one lock's lookup, it surely 
can't wait for your rehash.

Regards,
Tao