Linux-NVME Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: snitzer@redhat.com (Mike Snitzer)
Subject: [LSF/MM ATTEND][LSF/MM TOPIC] Multipath redesign
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:42:43 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160113154243.GA2563@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56962BDB.4080509@dev.mellanox.co.il>

On Wed, Jan 13 2016 at  5:50am -0500,
Sagi Grimberg <sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il> wrote:
 
> Another (adjacent) topic is multipath performance with blk-mq.
> 
> As I said, I've been looking at nvme multipathing support and
> initial measurements show huge contention on the multipath lock
> which really defeats the entire point of blk-mq...
> 
> I have yet to report this as my work is still in progress. I'm not sure
> if it's a topic on it's own but I'd love to talk about that as well...

This sounds like you aren't actually using blk-mq for the top-level DM
multipath queue.  And your findings contradicts what I heard from Keith
Busch when I developed request-based DM's blk-mq support, from commit 
bfebd1cdb497 ("dm: add full blk-mq support to request-based DM"):

     "Just providing a performance update. All my fio tests are getting
      roughly equal performance whether accessed through the raw block
      device or the multipath device mapper (~470k IOPS). I could only push
      ~20% of the raw iops through dm before this conversion, so this latest
      tree is looking really solid from a performance standpoint."

> >But in the end we should be able to do strip down the current (rather
> >complex) multipath-tools to just handle topology changes; everything
> >else will be done internally.
> 
> I'd love to see that happening.

Honestly, this needs to be a hardened plan that is hashed out _before_
LSF and then findings presented.  It is a complete waste of time to
debate nuance with Hannes in a one hour session.

Until I implemented the above DM core changes hch and Hannes were very
enthusiastic to throw away the existing DM multipath and multipath-tools
code (the old .request_fn queue lock bottleneck being the straw that
broke the camel's back).  Seems Hannes' enthusiasm hasn't tempered but
his hand-waving is still in full form.

Details matter.  I have no doubts aspects of what we have could be
improved but I really fail to see how moving multipathing to blk-mq is a
constructive way forward.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-01-13 15:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <56961493.5010901@suse.de>
2016-01-13 10:50 ` [LSF/MM ATTEND][LSF/MM TOPIC] Multipath redesign Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 11:46   ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-13 15:42   ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2016-01-13 16:06     ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 16:21       ` Mike Snitzer
2016-01-13 16:30         ` Sagi Grimberg
2016-01-13 16:18     ` Hannes Reinecke
2016-01-13 16:54       ` Mike Snitzer

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=20160113154243.GA2563@redhat.com \
    --to=snitzer@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