Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754525Ab1CQNJe (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:09:34 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1029 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754189Ab1CQNJb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:09:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:08:46 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer To: Nikanth Karthikesan Cc: Mustafa Mesanovic , Neil Brown , akpm@linux-foundation.org, 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 Message-ID: <20110317130846.GA8188@redhat.com> References: <201012271219.56476.mume@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201012271323.13406.mume@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4D74AEF9.7050108@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <201103171042.52792.knikanth@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103171042.52792.knikanth@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5229 Lines: 142 On Thu, Mar 17 2011 at 1:12am -0400, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote: > 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 > > >> > > >> wrote: > > >>> From: Mustafa Mesanovic > > >>> > > >>> 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 > > --- > > > > 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 You reviewed an old version, v4 was posted to dm-devel and is available here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/639801/ It should address all your concerns. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/