Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] btrfs: add read_policy latency

Michal Rostecki
2021-01-20T12:19:42Z

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 05:41:34PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> The read policy type latency routes the read IO based on the historical
> average wait-time experienced by the read IOs through the individual
> device. This patch obtains the historical read IO stats from the kernel
> block layer and calculates its average.
>
> Example usage:
> echo "latency" > /sys/fs/btrfs/$uuid/read_policy
>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
> ---
> v3: The block layer commit 0d02129e76ed (block: merge struct block_device and
> struct hd_struct) has changed the first argument in the function
> part_stat_read_all() in 5.11-rc1. So the compilation will fail. This patch
> fixes it.
> Commit log updated.
>
> v2: Use btrfs_debug_rl() instead of btrfs_info_rl()
> It is better we have this debug until we test this on at least few
> hardwares.
> Drop the unrelated changes.
> Update change log.
>
> v1: Drop part_stat_read_all instead use part_stat_read
> Drop inflight
>

Hi Anand,

I tested this policy with fio and dstat. It performs overall really
well. On my raid1c3 array with two HDDs and one SSD (which is the last
device), I'm getting the following results.

With direct=0:

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: bw=3560MiB/s (3733MB/s), 445MiB/s-445MiB/s (467MB/s-467MB/s),
io=3129GiB (3360GB), run=900003-900013msec

With direct=1:

Run status group 0 (all jobs):
READ: bw=520MiB/s (545MB/s), 64.9MiB/s-65.0MiB/s (68.1MB/s-68.2MB/s),
io=457GiB (490GB), run=900001-900001msec

However, I was also running dstat at the same time and I noticed that
the read stop sometimes for ~15-20 seconds. For example:

----system---- --dsk/sdb-- --dsk/sdc-- --dsk/sdd--
20-01 00:37:21| 0 0 : 0 0 : 509M 0
20-01 00:37:22| 0 0 : 0 0 : 517M 0
20-01 00:37:23| 0 0 : 0 0 : 507M 0
20-01 00:37:24| 0 0 : 0 0 : 518M 0
20-01 00:37:25| 0 0 : 0 0 : 22M 0
20-01 00:37:26| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:27| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:28| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:29| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:30| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:31| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:32| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:33| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:34| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:35| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:36| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:37| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:38| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:39| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:40| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:41| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:42| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:43| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:44| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:45| 0 0 : 0 0 : 0 0
20-01 00:37:46| 0 0 : 0 0 : 55M 0
20-01 00:37:47| 0 0 : 0 0 : 516M 0
20-01 00:37:48| 0 0 : 0 0 : 515M 0
20-01 00:37:49| 0 0 : 0 0 : 516M 0
20-01 00:37:50| 0 0 : 0 0 : 520M 0
20-01 00:37:51| 0 0 : 0 0 : 520M 0
20-01 00:37:52| 0 0 : 0 0 : 514M 0

Here is the full log:

https://susepaste.org/16928336

I never noticed that happening with the PID policy. Is that maybe
because of reading the part stats for all CPUs while selecting the
mirror?

Michal