From: Martin Wilck <martin.wilck@suse.com>
To: Heming Zhao <heming.zhao@suse.com>,
"teigland@redhat.com" <teigland@redhat.com>,
"linux-lvm@redhat.com" <linux-lvm@redhat.com>
Cc: "bmarzins@redhat.com" <bmarzins@redhat.com>,
"prajnoha@redhat.com" <prajnoha@redhat.com>,
"zkabelac@redhat.com" <zkabelac@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Discussion: performance issue on event activation mode
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 17:38:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d8c83a7f4368a9eb466fe78c98b5181ab9e80644.camel@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210909194417.GC19437@redhat.com>
On Thu, 2021-09-09 at 14:44 -0500, David Teigland wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 01:23:33PM +0000, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Di, 2021-06-08 at 14:29 +0200, Peter Rajnoha wrote:
> > > On Mon 07 Jun 2021 16:48, David Teigland wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If there are say 1000 PVs already present on the system, there
> > > > could be
> > > > real savings in having one lvm command process all 1000, and
> > > > then
> > > > switch
> > > > over to processing uevents for any further devices afterward.
> > > > The
> > > > switch
> > > > over would be delicate because of the obvious races involved
> > > > with
> > > > new devs
> > > > appearing, but probably feasible.
> > >
> > > Maybe to avoid the race, we could possibly write the proposed
> > > "/run/lvm2/boot-finished" right before we initiate scanning in
> > > "vgchange
> > > -aay" that is a part of the lvm2-activation-net.service (the last
> > > service to do the direct activation).
> > >
> > > A few event-based pvscans could fire during the window between
> > > "scan initiated phase" in lvm2-activation-net.service's
> > > "ExecStart=vgchange -aay..."
> > > and the originally proposed "ExecStartPost=/bin/touch
> > > /run/lvm2/boot-
> > > finished",
> > > but I think still better than missing important uevents
> > > completely in
> > > this window.
> >
> > That sounds reasonable. I was thinking along similar lines. Note
> > that
> > in the case where we had problems lately, all actual activation
> > (and
> > slowness) happened in lvm2-activation-early.service.
>
> I've implemented a solution like this and would like any thoughts,
> improvements, or testing to verify it can help:
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=lvm2.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/dev-dct-activation-switch-1
>
> I've taken some direction from the lvm activation generator, but
> there are
> details of that I'm not too familiar with, so I may be missing
> something
> (in particular it has three activation points but I'm showing two
> below.)
> This new method would probably let us drop the activation-generator,
> since
> we could easily configure an equivalent using this new method.
>
> Here's how it works:
>
> uevents for PVs run pvscan with the new option --eventactivation
> check.
> This makes pvscan check if the /run/lvm/event-activation-on file
> exists.
> If not, pvscan does nothing.
>
> lvm-activate-vgs-main.service
> . always runs (not generated)
> . does not wait for other virtual block device systems to start
> . runs vgchange -aay to activate any VGs already present
>
> lvm-activate-vgs-last.service
> . always runs (not generated)
> . runs after other systems, like multipathd, have started (we want it
> to find as many VGs to activate as possible)
> . runs vgchange -aay --eventactivation enable
> . the --eventactivation enable creates /run/lvm/event-activation-on,
> which enables the traditional pvscan activations from uevents.
> . this vgchange also creates pv online files for existing PVs.
> (Future pvscans will need the online files to know when VGs are
> completed, i.e. for VGs that are partially complete at the point
> of switching to event based actvivation.)
>
> uevents for PVs continue to run pvscan with the new option
> --eventactivation check, but the check now sees the event-activation-
> on
> temp file, so they will do activation as they have before.
>
> Notes:
>
> - To avoid missing VGs during the transition to event-based, the
> vgchange
> in lvm-activate-vgs-last will create event-activation-on before doing
> anything else. This means for a period of time both vgchange and
> pvscan
> may attempt to activate the same VG. These commits use the existing
> mechanism to resolve this (the --vgonline option and
> /run/lvm/vgs_online).
>
> - We could use the new lvm-activate-* services to replace the
> activation
> generator when lvm.conf event_activation=0. This would be done by
> simply
> not creating the event-activation-on file when event_activation=0.
>
> - To do the reverse, and use only event based activation without any
> lvm-activate-vgs services, a new lvm.conf setting could be used, e.g.
> event_activation_switch=0 and disabling lvm-activate-vgs services.
This last idea sounds awkward to me. But the rest is very nice.
Heming, do you agree we should give it a try?
Thanks,
Martin
_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-13 6:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 86+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-06 6:15 [linux-lvm] Discussion: performance issue on event activation mode heming.zhao
2021-06-06 16:35 ` Roger Heflin
2021-06-07 10:27 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-07 15:30 ` heming.zhao
2021-06-07 15:45 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-07 20:52 ` Roger Heflin
2021-06-07 21:30 ` David Teigland
2021-06-08 8:26 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-08 15:39 ` David Teigland
2021-06-08 15:47 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-08 16:02 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2021-06-08 16:05 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-08 16:03 ` David Teigland
2021-06-08 16:07 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-15 17:03 ` David Teigland
2021-06-15 18:21 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2021-06-16 16:18 ` heming.zhao
2021-06-16 16:38 ` David Teigland
2021-06-17 3:46 ` heming.zhao
2021-06-17 15:27 ` David Teigland
2021-06-08 16:49 ` heming.zhao
2021-06-08 16:18 ` heming.zhao
2021-06-09 4:01 ` heming.zhao
2021-06-09 5:37 ` Heming Zhao
2021-06-09 18:59 ` David Teigland
2021-06-10 17:23 ` heming.zhao
2021-06-07 15:48 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-07 16:31 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2021-06-07 21:48 ` David Teigland
2021-06-08 12:29 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-06-08 13:23 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-08 13:41 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-06-08 13:46 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2021-06-08 13:56 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-06-08 14:23 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2021-06-08 14:48 ` Martin Wilck
2021-06-08 15:19 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-06-08 15:39 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-09 19:44 ` David Teigland
2021-09-10 17:38 ` Martin Wilck [this message]
2021-09-12 16:51 ` heming.zhao
2021-09-27 10:00 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-09-27 15:38 ` David Teigland
2021-09-28 6:34 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-28 14:42 ` David Teigland
2021-09-28 15:16 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-28 15:31 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-28 15:56 ` David Teigland
2021-09-28 18:03 ` Benjamin Marzinski
2021-09-28 17:42 ` Benjamin Marzinski
2021-09-28 19:15 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-29 22:06 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-09-30 7:51 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-30 8:07 ` heming.zhao
2021-09-30 9:31 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-30 11:41 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-09-30 15:32 ` heming.zhao
2021-10-01 7:41 ` Martin Wilck
2021-10-01 8:08 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-09-30 11:29 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-09-30 16:04 ` David Teigland
2021-09-30 14:41 ` Benjamin Marzinski
2021-10-01 7:42 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-29 21:53 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-09-30 7:45 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-29 21:39 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-09-30 7:22 ` Martin Wilck
2021-09-30 14:26 ` David Teigland
2021-09-30 15:55 ` David Teigland
2021-10-01 8:00 ` Peter Rajnoha
2021-10-18 6:24 ` Martin Wilck
2021-10-18 15:04 ` David Teigland
2021-10-18 16:56 ` heming.zhao
2021-10-18 21:51 ` Zdenek Kabelac
2021-10-19 17:18 ` David Teigland
2021-10-20 14:40 ` Martin Wilck
2021-10-20 14:50 ` David Teigland
2021-10-20 14:54 ` Martin Wilck
2021-10-20 15:12 ` David Teigland
2021-06-07 16:40 ` David Teigland
2021-07-02 21:09 ` David Teigland
2021-07-02 21:22 ` Martin Wilck
2021-07-02 22:02 ` David Teigland
2021-07-03 11:49 ` heming.zhao
2021-07-08 10:10 ` Tom Yan
2021-07-02 21:31 ` Tom Yan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=d8c83a7f4368a9eb466fe78c98b5181ab9e80644.camel@suse.com \
--to=martin.wilck@suse.com \
--cc=bmarzins@redhat.com \
--cc=heming.zhao@suse.com \
--cc=linux-lvm@redhat.com \
--cc=prajnoha@redhat.com \
--cc=teigland@redhat.com \
--cc=zkabelac@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).