From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, dm-devel@redhat.com,
"Alasdair G. Kergon" <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] device mapper percpu patches
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 17:42:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181107224225.GA24745@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181107222904.GB24491@redhat.com>
On Wed, Nov 07 2018 at 5:29pm -0500,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06 2018 at 4:34pm -0500,
> Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > These are the device mapper percpu patches.
> >
> > Note that I didn't test request-based device mapper because I don't have
> > hardware for it (the patches don't convert request-base targets to percpu
> > values, but there are a few inevitable changes in dm-rq.c).
>
> Patches 1 - 3 make sense. But the use of percpu inflight counters isn't
> something I can get upstream. Any more scalable counter still needs to
> be wired up to the block stats interfaces (the one you did in patch 5 is
> only for the "inflight" fsffs file, there is also the generic diskstats
> callout to part_in_flight(), etc). Wiring up both part_in_flight() and
> part_in_flight_rw() to optionally callout to a new callback isn't going
> to fly.. especially if that callout is looping up the sum of percpu
> counters.
>
> I checked with Jens and now that in 4.21 all of the old request-based IO
> path is gone (and given that blk-mq bypasses use of ->in_flight[]): the
> only consumer of the existing ->in_flight[] is the bio-based IO path.
>
> Given that now only bio-based is consuming it, and your work was focused
> on making bio-based DM's "pending" IO accounting more scalable, it is
> best to just change block core's ->in_flight[] directly.
>
> But Jens is against switching to using percpu counters because they are
> really slow when summing the counts. And diskstats does that
> frequently. Jens said at least 2 other attempts were made and rejected
> to switch over to percpu counters.
>
> Jens' suggestion is to implement a new generic rolling per-node
> counter. Would you be open to trying that?
I've based my dm-4.21 branch on Jens' for-4.21/block branch and staged
your first 3 patches. If you're interested in exploring rolling
per-node inflight counters please base your work on this branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/log/?h=dm-4.21
("rolling per-node counters" aside, any new DM development should be
based on the dm-4.21 branch)
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-07 22:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-06 21:34 [patch 0/5] device mapper percpu patches Mikulas Patocka
2018-11-07 22:29 ` Mike Snitzer
2018-11-07 22:42 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2018-11-07 22:47 ` Mikulas Patocka
2018-11-07 22:59 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-16 0:00 ` Mikulas Patocka
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=20181107224225.GA24745@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox