-
colyli@suse.de authored
When I run a parallel reading performan testing on a md raid1 device with two NVMe SSDs, I observe very bad throughput in supprise: by fio with 64KB block size, 40 seq read I/O jobs, 128 iodepth, overall throughput is only 2.7GB/s, this is around 50% of the idea performance number. The perf reports locking contention happens at allow_barrier() and wait_barrier() code, - 41.41% fio [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave - _raw_spin_lock_irqsave + 89.92% allow_barrier + 9.34% __wake_up - 37.30% fio [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irq - _raw_spin_lock_irq - 100.00% wait_barrier The reason is, in these I/O barrier related functions, - raise_barrier() - lower_barrier() - wait_barrier() - allow_barrier() They always hold conf->resync_lock firstly, even there are only regular reading I/Os and no resync I/O at all. This is a huge performance penalty. The solution is a lockless-like algorithm in I/O barrier code, and only holding conf->resync_lock when it has to. The original idea is from Hannes Reinecke, and Neil Brown provides comments to improve it. I continue to work on it, and make the patch into current form. In the new simpler raid1 I/O barrier implementation, there are two wait barrier functions, - wait_barrier() Which calls _wait_barrier(), is used for regular write I/O. If there is resync I/O happening on the same I/O barrier bucket, or the whole array is frozen, task will wait until no barrier on same barrier bucket, or the whold array is unfreezed. - wait_read_barrier() Since regular read I/O won't interfere with resync I/O (read_balance() will make sure only uptodate data will be read out), it is unnecessary to wait for barrier in regular read I/Os, waiting in only necessary when the whole array is frozen. The operations on conf->nr_pending[idx], conf->nr_waiting[idx], conf-> barrier[idx] are very carefully designed in raise_barrier(), lower_barrier(), _wait_barrier() and wait_read_barrier(), in order to avoid unnecessary spin locks in these functions. Once conf-> nr_pengding[idx] is increased, a resync I/O with same barrier bucket index has to wait in raise_barrier(). Then in _wait_barrier() if no barrier raised in same barrier bucket index and array is not frozen, the regular I/O doesn't need to hold conf->resync_lock, it can just increase conf->nr_pending[idx], and return to its caller. wait_read_barrier() is very similar to _wait_barrier(), the only difference is it only waits when array is frozen. For heavy parallel reading I/Os, the lockless I/O barrier code almostly gets rid of all spin lock cost. This patch significantly improves raid1 reading peroformance. From my testing, a raid1 device built by two NVMe SSD, runs fio with 64KB blocksize, 40 seq read I/O jobs, 128 iodepth, overall throughput increases from 2.7GB/s to 4.6GB/s (+70%). Changelog V4: - Change conf->nr_queued[] to atomic_t. - Define BARRIER_BUCKETS_NR_BITS by (PAGE_SHIFT - ilog2(sizeof(atomic_t))) V3: - Add smp_mb__after_atomic() as Shaohua and Neil suggested. - Change conf->nr_queued[] from atomic_t to int. - Change conf->array_frozen from atomic_t back to int, and use READ_ONCE(conf->array_frozen) to check value of conf->array_frozen in _wait_barrier() and wait_read_barrier(). - In _wait_barrier() and wait_read_barrier(), add a call to wake_up(&conf->wait_barrier) after atomic_dec(&conf->nr_pending[idx]), to fix a deadlock between _wait_barrier()/wait_read_barrier and freeze_array(). V2: - Remove a spin_lock/unlock pair in raid1d(). - Add more code comments to explain why there is no racy when checking two atomic_t variables at same time. V1: - Original RFC patch for comments. Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de> Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com> Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de> Cc: Guoqing Jiang <gqjiang@suse.com> Reviewed-by: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>
824e47da