Re: [PATCH] sbitmap: Use single per-bitmap counting to wake up queued tags

[Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>]

Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:

> On 11/5/22 5:10 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>> Performance-wise, one should expect very similar performance to the
>> original algorithm for the case where there is no queueing.  In both the
>> old algorithm and this implementation, the first thing is to check
>> ws_active, which bails out if there is no queueing to be managed. In the
>> new code, we took care to avoid accounting completions and wakeups when
>> there is no queueing, to not pay the cost of atomic operations
>> unnecessarily, since it doesn't skew the numbers.
>> 
>> For more interesting cases, where there is queueing, we need to take
>> into account the cross-communication of the atomic operations.  I've
>> been benchmarking by running parallel fio jobs against a single hctx
>> nullb in different hardware queue depth scenarios, and verifying both
>> IOPS and queueing.
>> 
>> Each experiment was repeated 5 times on a 20-CPU box, with 20 parallel
>> jobs. fio was issuing fixed-size randwrites with qd=64 against nullb,
>> varying only the hardware queue length per test.
>> 
>> queue size 2                 4                 8                 16                 32                 64
>> 6.1-rc2    1681.1K (1.6K)    2633.0K (12.7K)   6940.8K (16.3K)   8172.3K (617.5K)   8391.7K (367.1K)   8606.1K (351.2K)
>> patched    1721.8K (15.1K)   3016.7K (3.8K)    7543.0K (89.4K)   8132.5K (303.4K)   8324.2K (230.6K)   8401.8K (284.7K)
>> 
>> The following is a similar experiment, ran against a nullb with a single
>> bitmap shared by 20 hctx spread across 2 NUMA nodes. This has 40
>> parallel fio jobs operating on the same device
>> 
>> queue size 2 	             4                 8              	16             	    32		       64
>> 6.1-rc2	   1081.0K (2.3K)    957.2K (1.5K)     1699.1K (5.7K) 	6178.2K (124.6K)    12227.9K (37.7K)   13286.6K (92.9K)
>> patched	   1081.8K (2.8K)    1316.5K (5.4K)    2364.4K (1.8K) 	6151.4K  (20.0K)    11893.6K (17.5K)   12385.6K (18.4K)
>
> What's the queue depth of these devices? That's the interesting question
> here, as it'll tell us if any of these are actually hitting the slower
> path where you made changes. 
>

Hi Jens,

The hardware queue depth is a parameter being varied in this experiment.
Each column of the tables has a different queue depth.  Its value is the
first line (queue size) of both tables.  For instance, looking at the
first table, for a device with hardware queue depth=2, 6.1-rc2 gave
1681K IOPS and the patched version gave 1721.8K IOPS.

As mentioned, I monitored the size of the sbitmap wqs during the
benchmark execution to confirm it was indeed hitting the slow path and
queueing.  Indeed, I observed less queueing on higher QDs (16,32) and
even less for QD=64.  For QD<=8, there was extensive queueing present
throughout the execution.

I should provide the queue size over time alongside the latency numbers.
I have to rerun the benchmarks already to collect the information
Chaitanya requested.

> I suspect you are for the second set of numbers, but not for the first
> one?

No. both tables show some level of queueing. The shared bitmap in
table 2 surely has way more intensive queueing, though.

> Anything that isn't hitting the wait path for tags isn't a very useful
> test, as I would not expect any changes there.

Even when there is less to no queueing (QD=64 in this data), we still
enter sbitmap_queue_wake_up and bail out on the first line
!wait_active. This is why I think it is important to include QD=64
here. it is less interesting data, as I mentioned, but it shows no
regressions of the faspath.

Thanks,

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi