On Mon, Jan 25 2021 at 7:13am -0500, Jeffle Xu <jeffl...@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> Since currently we have no simple but efficient way to implement the > bio-based IO polling in the split-bio tracking style, this patch set > turns to the original implementation mechanism that iterates and > polls all underlying hw queues in polling mode. One optimization is > introduced to mitigate the race of one hw queue among multiple polling > instances. > > I'm still open to the split bio tracking mechanism, if there's > reasonable way to implement it. > > > [Performance Test] > The performance is tested by fio (engine=io_uring) 4k randread on > dm-linear device. The dm-linear device is built upon nvme devices, > and every nvme device has one polling hw queue (nvme.poll_queues=1). > > Test Case | IOPS in IRQ mode | IOPS in polling mode | Diff > | (hipri=0) | (hipri=1) | > --------------------------- | ---------------- | -------------------- | ---- > 3 target nvme, num_jobs = 1 | 198k | 276k | ~40% > 3 target nvme, num_jobs = 3 | 608k | 705k | ~16% > 6 target nvme, num_jobs = 6 | 1197k | 1347k | ~13% > 3 target nvme, num_jobs = 6 | 1285k | 1293k | ~0% > > As the number of polling instances (num_jobs) increases, the > performance improvement decreases, though it's still positive > compared to the IRQ mode. I think there is serious room for improvement for DM's implementation; but the block changes for this are all we'd need for DM in the longrun anyway (famous last words). So on a block interface level I'm OK with block patches 1-3. I don't see why patch 5 is needed (said the same in reply to it; but I just saw your reason below..). Anyway, I can pick up DM patches 4 and 6 via linux-dm.git if Jens picks up patches 1-3. Jens, what do you think? > [Optimization] > To mitigate the race when iterating all the underlying hw queues, one > flag is maintained on a per-hw-queue basis. This flag is used to > indicate whether this polling hw queue currently being polled on or > not. Every polling hw queue is exclusive to one polling instance, i.e., > the polling instance will skip this polling hw queue if this hw queue > currently is being polled by another polling instance, and start > polling on the next hw queue. > > This per-hw-queue flag map is currently maintained in dm layer. In > the table load phase, a table describing all underlying polling hw > queues is built and stored in 'struct dm_table'. It is safe when > reloading the mapping table. > > > changes since v1: > - patch 1,2,4 is the same as v1 and have already been reviewed > - patch 3 is refactored a bit on the basis of suggestions from > Mike Snitzer. > - patch 5 is newly added and introduces one new queue flag > representing if the queue is capable of IO polling. This mainly > simplifies the logic in queue_poll_store(). Ah OK, don't see why we want to eat a queue flag for that though! > - patch 6 implements the core mechanism supporting IO polling. > The sanity check checking if the dm device supports IO polling is > also folded into this patch, and the queue flag will be cleared if > it doesn't support, in case of table reloading. Thanks, Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
