From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: dm-devel <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use Average path priority value for path switching
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:40:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A4DA7CC.9040902@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1246583474.30568.2.camel@chandra-ubuntu>
Hi Chandra,
Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Few weeks back I posted some issues w.r.t the way path priorities are
> used during path switching.
>
> Here is Hannes's latest response
> (http://marc.info/?l=dm-devel&m=124573807907764&w=2) and this patch is
> based on his suggestion.
>
Very cool! Well done there. But a few comments I have, see inline.
> regards,
>
> chandra
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Failback happens only when the sum of priorities of all paths
> (on the higher priority path group) is greater than the sum
> of priorities of all paths on the lower priority path group.
>
> This leads into problems when there are more than one paths
> in each of the path groups, and the sum of all paths in the
> lower priority path group is greater than that of path priority
> of a single high priority path.
>
> This patch fixes the problem by using average priority of a
> path group in deciding path group switch over.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chandra Seetharaman <sekharan@us.ibm.com>
> ---
> libmultipath/structs.h | 1 +
> libmultipath/switchgroup.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> Index: multipath-tools-mainline/libmultipath/structs.h
> ===================================================================
> --- multipath-tools-mainline.orig/libmultipath/structs.h
> +++ multipath-tools-mainline/libmultipath/structs.h
> @@ -202,6 +202,7 @@ struct pathgroup {
> long id;
> int status;
> int priority;
> + int up_paths;
Maybe rename this to active_paths?
> vector paths;
> char * selector;
> };
> Index: multipath-tools-mainline/libmultipath/switchgroup.c
> ===================================================================
> --- multipath-tools-mainline.orig/libmultipath/switchgroup.c
> +++ multipath-tools-mainline/libmultipath/switchgroup.c
> @@ -14,13 +14,16 @@ path_group_prio_update (struct pathgroup
> int priority = 0;
> struct path * pp;
>
> + pgp->up_paths = 0;
> if (!pgp->paths) {
> pgp->priority = 0;
> return;
> }
> vector_foreach_slot (pgp->paths, pp, i) {
> - if (pp->state != PATH_DOWN)
> + if (pp->state != PATH_DOWN) {
> priority += pp->priority;
Do _not_ aggregate the path state here; just do
priority = pp->priority
it'll save you the averaging out later on.
> + pgp->up_paths++;
> + }
> }
> pgp->priority = priority;
> }
> @@ -29,8 +32,9 @@ extern int
> select_path_group (struct multipath * mpp)
> {
> int i;
> - int highest = 0;
> + int highest_avg = 0;
> int bestpg = 1;
> + int avg_priority, highest_up_paths = 1;
Again, maybe use max_active_paths and max_priority
> struct pathgroup * pgp;
>
> if (!mpp->pg)
> @@ -41,9 +45,18 @@ select_path_group (struct multipath * mp
> continue;
>
> path_group_prio_update(pgp);
> - if (pgp->priority > highest) {
> - highest = pgp->priority;
> - bestpg = i + 1;
> + if (pgp->up_paths) {
> + avg_priority = pgp->priority / pgp->up_paths;
You don't have to average here, if you don't aggregate the priority
as mentioned above.
The test would then just be
if (pgp->priority > max_priority) {
max_priority = pgp->priority;
max_active_paths = pgp->active_paths;
bestpg = i + i;
} else if (pgp->priority == max_priority) {
if (pgp->active_paths > max_active_paths) {
max_active_paths = pgp->active_paths;
bestpg = i + 1;
}
}
> + if (avg_priority > highest_avg) {
> + highest_avg = avg_priority;
> + highest_up_paths = pgp->up_paths;
> + bestpg = i + 1;
> + } else if (avg_priority == highest_avg) {
> + if (pgp->up_paths > highest_up_paths) {
> + highest_up_paths = pgp->up_paths;
> + bestpg = i + 1;
> + }
> + }
> }
> }
> return bestpg;
>
>
But apart from this: Yes, this is exactly how I
think it should be done.
Great job, Chandra.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke zSeries & Storage
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-03 6:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-03 1:11 [PATCH] Use Average path priority value for path switching Chandra Seetharaman
2009-07-03 6:40 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2009-07-06 18:17 ` Chandra Seetharaman
2009-07-30 20:13 ` [RESEND] " Chandra Seetharaman
2009-07-31 6:06 ` Hannes Reinecke
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=4A4DA7CC.9040902@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=sekharan@linux.vnet.ibm.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.