On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 8:03 AM Xavi Hernandez <xhernan...@redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, 08:53 Vijay Bellur <vbel...@redhat.com wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the detailed update, Xavi! This looks very interesting.
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 7:50 AM Xavi Hernandez <xhernan...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've just updated a patch [1] that implements a new thread pool based on
>>> a wait-free queue provided by userspace-rcu library. The patch also
>>> includes an auto scaling mechanism that only keeps running the needed
>>> amount of threads for the current workload.
>>>
>>> This new approach has some advantages:
>>>
>>>    - It's provided globally inside libglusterfs instead of inside an
>>>    xlator
>>>
>>> This makes it possible that fuse thread and epoll threads transfer the
>>> received request to another thread sooner, wating less CPU and reacting
>>> sooner to other incoming requests.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Adding jobs to the queue used by the thread pool only requires an
>>>    atomic operation
>>>
>>> This makes the producer side of the queue really fast, almost with no
>>> delay.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Contention is reduced
>>>
>>> The producer side has negligible contention thanks to the wait-free
>>> enqueue operation based on an atomic access. The consumer side requires a
>>> mutex, but the duration is very small and the scaling mechanism makes sure
>>> that there are no more threads than needed contending for the mutex.
>>>
>>>
>>> This change disables io-threads, since it replaces part of its
>>> functionality. However there are two things that could be needed from
>>> io-threads:
>>>
>>>    - Prioritization of fops
>>>
>>> Currently, io-threads assigns priorities to each fop, so that some fops
>>> are handled before than others.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - Fair distribution of execution slots between clients
>>>
>>> Currently, io-threads processes requests from each client in round-robin.
>>>
>>>
>>> These features are not implemented right now. If they are needed,
>>> probably the best thing to do would be to keep them inside io-threads, but
>>> change its implementation so that it uses the global threads from the
>>> thread pool instead of its own threads.
>>>
>>
>>
>> These features are indeed useful to have and hence modifying the
>> implementation of io-threads to provide this behavior would be welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> These tests have shown that the limiting factor has been the disk in
>>> most cases, so it's hard to tell if the change has really improved things.
>>> There is only one clear exception: self-heal on a dispersed volume
>>> completes 12.7% faster. The utilization of CPU has also dropped drastically:
>>>
>>> Old implementation: 12.30 user, 41.78 sys, 43.16 idle,  0.73 wait
>>>
>>> New implementation: 4.91 user,  5.52 sys, 81.60 idle,  5.91 wait
>>>
>>>
>>> Now I'm running some more tests on NVMe to try to see the effects of the
>>> change when disk is not limiting performance. I'll update once I've more
>>> data.
>>>
>>>
>> Will look forward to these numbers.
>>
>
> I have identified an issue that limits the number of active threads when
> load is high, causing some regressions. I'll fix it and rerun the tests on
> Monday.
>

Once the issue was solved, it caused high load averages for some workloads
that were actually causing a regression (too much I/O I guess) instead of
improving performance. So I added a configurable maximum amount of threads
and made the whole implementation optional, so that it can be safely used
when required.

I did some tests and I was able to, at least, have the same performance we
had before this patch in all cases. In some cases even better. But each
test needed a manual configuration on the number of threads.

I need to work on a way to automatically compute the maximum so that it can
be used easily in any workload (or even combined workloads).

I uploaded the latest version of the patch.

Xavi


> Xavi
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vijay
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Reply via email to