From: Brian King <brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:DEVICE-MAPPER (LVM)" <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 1/1] block: Convert hd_struct in_flight from atomic to percpu
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 13:33:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ca8ccbe7-beb6-bc0a-046c-b999004f0157@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0759ff58-caa0-9e55-b5ac-6324d9ba521b@kernel.dk>
On 06/30/2017 09:08 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> Compared with the totally percpu approach, this way might help 1:M or
>>>> N:M mapping, but won't help 1:1 map(NVMe), when hctx is mapped to
>>>> each CPU(especially there are huge hw queues on a big system), :-(
>>>
>>> Not disagreeing with that, without having some mechanism to only
>>> loop queues that have pending requests. That would be similar to the
>>> ctx_map for sw to hw queues. But I don't think that would be worthwhile
>>> doing, I like your pnode approach better. However, I'm still not fully
>>> convinced that one per node is enough to get the scalability we need.
>>>
>>> Would be great if Brian could re-test with your updated patch, so we
>>> know how it works for him at least.
>>
>> I'll try running with both approaches today and see how they compare.
>
> Focus on Ming's, a variant of that is the most likely path forward,
> imho. It'd be great to do a quick run on mine as well, just to establish
> how it compares to mainline, though.
On my initial runs, the one from you Jens, appears to perform a bit better, although
both are a huge improvement from what I was seeing before.
I ran 4k random reads using fio to nullblk in two configurations on my 20 core
system with 4 NUMA nodes and 4-way SMT, so 80 logical CPUs. I ran both 80 threads
to a single null_blk as well as 80 threads to 80 null_block devices, so one thread
per null_blk. This is what I saw on this machine:
Using the Per node atomic change from Ming Lei
1 null_blk, 80 threads
iops=9376.5K
80 null_blk, 1 thread
iops=9523.5K
Using the alternate patch from Jens using the tags
1 null_blk, 80 threads
iops=9725.8K
80 null_blk, 1 thread
iops=9569.4K
Its interesting that with this change the single device, 80 threads scenario
actually got better than the 80 null_blk scenario. I'll try on a larger machine
as well. I've got a 32 core machine I can try this on too. Next week I can
work with our performance team on running this on a system with a bunch of nvme
devices so we can then test the disk partition case as well and see if there is
any noticeable overhead.
Thanks,
Brian
--
Brian King
Power Linux I/O
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-30 18:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-28 21:12 [PATCH 1/1] block: Convert hd_struct in_flight from atomic to percpu Brian King
2017-06-28 21:49 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-28 22:04 ` Brian King
2017-06-29 8:40 ` Ming Lei
2017-06-29 15:58 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-29 16:00 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-29 18:42 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-30 1:20 ` Ming Lei
2017-06-30 2:17 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-30 13:05 ` [dm-devel] " Brian King
2017-06-30 14:08 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-30 18:33 ` Brian King [this message]
2017-06-30 23:23 ` Ming Lei
2017-06-30 23:26 ` Jens Axboe
2017-07-01 2:18 ` Brian King
2017-07-04 1:20 ` Ming Lei
2017-07-04 20:58 ` Brian King
2017-07-01 4:17 ` Jens Axboe
2017-07-01 4:59 ` Jens Axboe
2017-07-01 16:43 ` Jens Axboe
2017-07-04 20:55 ` Brian King
2017-07-04 21:57 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-29 16:25 ` Ming Lei
2017-06-29 17:31 ` Brian King
2017-06-30 1:08 ` Ming Lei
2017-06-28 21:54 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-28 21:59 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-28 22:07 ` [dm-devel] " Brian King
2017-06-28 22:19 ` Jens Axboe
2017-06-29 12:59 ` Brian King
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=ca8ccbe7-beb6-bc0a-046c-b999004f0157@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.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