Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] dm: support IO polling for bio-based dm device

JeffleXu
2021-01-28T03:07:50Z

On 1/28/21 1:19 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25 2021 at 7:13am -0500,
> Jeffle Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>
>> Since currently we have no simple but efficient way to implement the
>> bio-based IO polling in the split-bio tracking style, this patch set
>> turns to the original implementation mechanism that iterates and
>> polls all underlying hw queues in polling mode. One optimization is
>> introduced to mitigate the race of one hw queue among multiple polling
>> instances.
>>
>> I'm still open to the split bio tracking mechanism, if there's
>> reasonable way to implement it.
>>
>>
>> [Performance Test]
>> The performance is tested by fio (engine=io_uring) 4k randread on
>> dm-linear device. The dm-linear device is built upon nvme devices,
>> and every nvme device has one polling hw queue (nvme.poll_queues=1).
>>
>> Test Case | IOPS in IRQ mode | IOPS in polling mode | Diff
>> | (hipri=0) | (hipri=1) |
>> --------------------------- | ---------------- | -------------------- | ----
>> 3 target nvme, num_jobs = 1 | 198k | 276k | ~40%
>> 3 target nvme, num_jobs = 3 | 608k | 705k | ~16%
>> 6 target nvme, num_jobs = 6 | 1197k | 1347k | ~13%
>> 3 target nvme, num_jobs = 6 | 1285k | 1293k | ~0%
>>
>> As the number of polling instances (num_jobs) increases, the
>> performance improvement decreases, though it's still positive
>> compared to the IRQ mode.
>
> I think there is serious room for improvement for DM's implementation;
> but the block changes for this are all we'd need for DM in the longrun
> anyway (famous last words).

Agreed.

> So on a block interface level I'm OK with
> block patches 1-3.
>
> I don't see why patch 5 is needed (said the same in reply to it; but I
> just saw your reason below..).
>
> Anyway, I can pick up DM patches 4 and 6 via linux-dm.git if Jens picks
> up patches 1-3. Jens, what do you think?

cc Jens.

Also I will send a new version later, maybe some refactor on patch5 and
some typo modifications.

>
>> [Optimization]
>> To mitigate the race when iterating all the underlying hw queues, one
>> flag is maintained on a per-hw-queue basis. This flag is used to
>> indicate whether this polling hw queue currently being polled on or
>> not. Every polling hw queue is exclusive to one polling instance, i.e.,
>> the polling instance will skip this polling hw queue if this hw queue
>> currently is being polled by another polling instance, and start
>> polling on the next hw queue.
>>
>> This per-hw-queue flag map is currently maintained in dm layer. In
>> the table load phase, a table describing all underlying polling hw
>> queues is built and stored in 'struct dm_table'. It is safe when
>> reloading the mapping table.
>>
>>
>> changes since v1:
>> - patch 1,2,4 is the same as v1 and have already been reviewed
>> - patch 3 is refactored a bit on the basis of suggestions from
>> Mike Snitzer.
>> - patch 5 is newly added and introduces one new queue flag
>> representing if the queue is capable of IO polling. This mainly
>> simplifies the logic in queue_poll_store().
>
> Ah OK, don't see why we want to eat a queue flag for that though!
>
>> - patch 6 implements the core mechanism supporting IO polling.
>> The sanity check checking if the dm device supports IO polling is
>> also folded into this patch, and the queue flag will be cleared if
>> it doesn't support, in case of table reloading.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

--
Thanks,
Jeffle