From: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>
To: Mustafa Mesanovic <mume@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, snitzer@redhat.com,
dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, cotte@de.ibm.com,
ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, hare@suse.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] dm: improve read performance
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:42:52 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201103171042.52792.knikanth@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D74AEF9.7050108@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Monday, March 07, 2011 03:40:01 pm Mustafa Mesanovic wrote:
> On 12/27/2010 01:23 PM, Mustafa Mesanovic wrote:
> > On Mon December 27 2010 12:54:59 Neil Brown wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:19:55 +0100 Mustafa Mesanovic
> >>
> >> <mume@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>> From: Mustafa Mesanovic<mume@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>>
> >>> A short explanation in prior: in this case we have "stacked" dm
> >>> devices. Two multipathed luns combined together to one striped logical
> >>> volume.
> >>>
> >>> I/O throughput degradation happens at __bio_add_page when bio's get
> >>> checked upon max_sectors. In this setup max_sectors is always set to 8
> >>> -> what is 4KiB.
> >>> A standalone striped logical volume on luns which are not multipathed
> >>> do not have the problem: the logical volume will take over the
> >>> max_sectors from luns below.
>
> [...]
>
> >>> Using the patch improves read I/O up to 3x. In this specific case from
> >>> 600MiB/s up to 1800MiB/s.
> >>
> >> and using this patch will cause IO to fail sometimes.
> >> If an IO request which is larger than a page crosses a device boundary
> >> in the underlying e.g. RAID0, the RAID0 will return an error as such
> >> things should not happen - they are prevented by merge_bvec_fn.
> >>
> >> If merge_bvec_fn is not being honoured, then you MUST limit requests to
> >> a single entry iovec of at most one page.
> >>
> >> NeilBrown
> >
> > Thank you for that hint, I will try to write a merge_bvec_fn for
> > dm-stripe.c which solves the problem, if that is ok?
> >
> > Mustafa Mesanovic
>
> Now here my new suggestion to fix this issue, what is your opinion?
> I tested this with different setups, and it worked fine and I had
> very good performance improvements.
>
Some minor style nitpicks.
> [RFC][PATCH] dm: improve read performance - v2
>
> This patch adds a merge_fn for the dm stripe target. This merge_fn
> prevents dm_set_device_limits() setting the max_sectors to 4KiB
> (PAGE_SIZE). (As in a prior patch already mentioned.)
> Now the read performance improved up to 3x higher compared to before.
>
> What happened before:
> I/O throughput degradation happened at __bio_add_page() when bio's got
> checked at the very beginning upon max_sectors. In this setup max_sectors
> is always set to 8. So bio's entered the dm target with a max of 4KiB.
>
> Now dm-stripe target will have its own merge_fn so max_sectors will not
> pushed down to 8 (4KiB), and bio's can get bigger than 4KiB.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mustafa Mesanovic<mume@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>
> dm-stripe.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-stripe.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/md/dm-stripe.c 2011-02-28 10:23:37.000000000
> +0100 +++ linux-2.6/drivers/md/dm-stripe.c 2011-02-28 10:24:29.000000000
> +0100 @@ -396,6 +396,29 @@
> blk_limits_io_opt(limits, chunk_size * sc->stripes);
> }
>
> +static int stripe_merge(struct dm_target *ti, struct bvec_merge_data *bvm,
> + struct bio_vec *biovec, int max_size)
> +{
> + struct stripe_c *sc = (struct stripe_c *) ti->private;
> + sector_t offset, chunk;
> + uint32_t stripe;
> + struct request_queue *q;
> +
> + offset = bvm->bi_sector - ti->begin;
> + chunk = offset>> sc->chunk_shift;
> + stripe = sector_div(chunk, sc->stripes);
> +
> + if (!bdev_get_queue(sc->stripe[stripe].dev->bdev)->merge_bvec_fn)
> + return max_size;
> +
> + bvm->bi_bdev = sc->stripe[stripe].dev->bdev;
> + q = bdev_get_queue(bvm->bi_bdev);
Initializing q at the top would simplify the check fro merge_bvec_fn above.
> + bvm->bi_sector = sc->stripe[stripe].physical_start +
> + (chunk<< sc->chunk_shift) + (offset& sc->chunk_mask);
> +
Can this be written as
bvm->bi_sector = sc->stripe[stripe].physical_start +
bvm->bi_sector - ti->begin;
or even better
bvm->bi_sector = sc->stripe[stripe].physical_start +
dm_target_offset(ti, bvm->bi_sector);
>
> + return min(max_size, q->merge_bvec_fn(q, bvm, biovec));
> +}
> +
> static struct target_type stripe_target = {
> .name = "striped",
> .version = {1, 3, 1},
> @@ -403,6 +426,7 @@
> .ctr = stripe_ctr,
> .dtr = stripe_dtr,
> .map = stripe_map,
> + .merge = stripe_merge,
> .end_io = stripe_end_io,
> .status = stripe_status,
> .iterate_devices = stripe_iterate_devices,
>
>
>
Reviewed-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-17 5:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-12-27 11:19 [RFC][PATCH] dm: improve read performance Mustafa Mesanovic
2010-12-27 11:54 ` Neil Brown
2010-12-27 12:23 ` Mustafa Mesanovic
2011-03-07 10:10 ` Mustafa Mesanovic
2011-03-08 2:21 ` [PATCH v3] dm stripe: implement merge method Mike Snitzer
2011-03-08 10:29 ` Mustafa Mesanovic
2011-03-08 16:48 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-03-10 14:02 ` Mustafa Mesanovic
2011-03-12 22:42 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-03-14 11:54 ` Mustafa Mesanovic
2011-03-14 14:33 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-03-16 20:21 ` [PATCH v4] " Mike Snitzer
2011-03-17 5:12 ` Nikanth Karthikesan [this message]
2011-03-17 13:08 ` [RFC][PATCH] dm: improve read performance Mike Snitzer
2011-03-18 4:59 ` Nikanth Karthikesan
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=201103171042.52792.knikanth@suse.de \
--to=knikanth@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cotte@de.ibm.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mume@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=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