[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 00/12] Improve Raid5 Lock Contention

On 4/21/22 3:54 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> Hi,
> This is v2 of this series which addresses Christoph's feedback and
> fixes some bugs. The first posting is at [1]. A git branch is
> available at [2].
> --
> I've been doing some work trying to improve the bulk write performance
> of raid5 on large systems with fast NVMe drives. The bottleneck appears
> largely to be lock contention on the hash_lock and device_lock. This
> series improves the situation slightly by addressing a couple of low
> hanging fruit ways to take the lock fewer times in the request path.
> Patch 9 adjusts how batching works by keeping a reference to the
> previous stripe_head in raid5_make_request(). Under most situtations,
> this removes the need to take the hash_lock in stripe_add_to_batch_list()
> which should reduce the number of times the lock is taken by a factor of
> about 2.
> Patch 12 pivots the way raid5_make_request() works. Before the patch, the
> code must find the stripe_head for every 4KB page in the request, so each
> stripe head must be found once for every data disk. The patch changes this
> so that all the data disks can be added to a stripe_head at once and the
> number of times the stripe_head must be found (and thus the number of
> times the hash_lock is taken) should be reduced by a factor roughly equal
> to the number of data disks.
> The remaining patches are just cleanup and prep patches for those two
> patches.
> Doing apples to apples testing this series on a small VM with 5 ram
> disks, I saw a bandwidth increase of roughly 14% and lock contentions
> on the hash_lock (as reported by lock stat) reduced by more than a factor
> of 5 (though it is still significantly contended).
> Testing on larger systems with NVMe drives saw similar small bandwidth
> increases from 3% to 20% depending on the parameters. Oddly small arrays
> had larger gains, likely due to them having lower starting bandwidths; I
> would have expected larger gains with larger arrays (seeing there
> should have been even fewer locks taken in raid5_make_request()).
> Logan
> [1]
> [2] raid5_lock_cont_v2
> --
> Changes since v1:
> - Rebased on current md-next branch (190a901246c69d79)
> - Added patch to create a helper for checking if a sector
> is ahead of the reshape (per Christoph)
> - Reworked the __find_stripe() patch to create a find_get_stripe()
> helper (per Christoph)
> - Added more patches to further refactor raid5_make_request() and
> pull most of the loop body into a helper function (per Christoph)
> - A few other minor cleanups (boolean return, droping casting when
> printing sectors, commit message grammar) as suggested by Christoph.
> - Fixed two uncommon but bad data corruption bugs in that were found.
> --
> Logan Gunthorpe (12):
> md/raid5: Factor out ahead_of_reshape() function
> md/raid5: Refactor raid5_make_request loop
> md/raid5: Move stripe_add_to_batch_list() call out of add_stripe_bio()
> md/raid5: Move common stripe count increment code into __find_stripe()
> md/raid5: Factor out helper from raid5_make_request() loop
> md/raid5: Drop the do_prepare flag in raid5_make_request()
> md/raid5: Move read_seqcount_begin() into make_stripe_request()
> md/raid5: Refactor for loop in raid5_make_request() into while loop
> md/raid5: Keep a reference to last stripe_head for batch
> md/raid5: Refactor add_stripe_bio()
> md/raid5: Check all disks in a stripe_head for reshape progress
> md/raid5: Pivot raid5_make_request()

Generally, I don't object the cleanup patches since the code looks more
But my concern is that since some additional function calls are added to
hot path
(raid5_make_request), could the performance be affected?

And I think patch 9 and patch 12 are helpful for performance
improvement,  did
you measure the performance without those cleanup patches?


 \ /
  Last update: 2022-04-24 09:55    [W:0.252 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site