Re: [Lsf] dm-mpath request merging concerns [was: Re: It's time to put together the schedule]

["Benjamin Marzinski" <bmarzins@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:18:36AM -0600, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 2/23/15, 7:50 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 23 2015 at  2:18am -0500,
> >Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >>On 02/20/2015 02:29 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>>In the absence of any strong requests, the Programme Committee has taken
> >>>a first stab at an agenda here:
> >>>
> >>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArurRVMVCSnkdEl4a0NrNTgtU2JrWDNtWGRDOWRhZnc
> >>>
> >>>If there's anything you think should be discussed (or shouldn't be
> >>>discussed) speak now ...
> >>>
> >>Recently we've found a rather worrysome queueing degradation with
> >>multipathing, which pointed to a deficiency in the scheduler itself:
> >>SAP found that a device with 4 paths had less I/O throughput than a
> >>system with 2 paths. When they've reduced the queue depth on the 4
> >>path system they managed to increase the throughput somewhat, but
> >>still less than they've had with two paths.
> >
> >The block layer doesn't have any understanding of how many paths are
> >behind the top-level dm-mpath request_queue that is supposed to be doing
> >the merging.
> >
> >So from a pure design level it is surprising that 2 vs 4 is impacting
> >the merging at all.  I think Jeff Moyer (cc'd) has dealt with SAP
> >performance recently too.
> >
> >>As it turns out, with 4 paths the system rarely did any I/O merging,
> >>but rather fired off the 4k requests as fast as possible.
> >>With two paths it was able to do some merging, leading to improved
> >>performance.
> >>
> >>I was under the impression that the merging algorithm in the block
> >>layer would only unplug the queue once the request had been fully
> >>formed, ie after merging has happened. But apparently that is not
> >>the case here.
> >
> >Just because you aren't seeing merging are you sure it has anything to
> >do with unpluging?  Would be nice to know more about the workload.
> >
> 
> I think I remember this problem. In the original request based design we hit
> this issue and Kiyoshi or Jun'ichi did some changes for it.
> 
> I think it was related to the busy/dm_lld_busy code in dm.c and dm-mpath.c.
> The problem was that we do the merging in the dm level queue. The underlying
> paths do not merge bios. They just take the request sent to them. The change
> that was done to promote (I do not think we ever completely fixed the issue)
> was that normally the workload was heavy enough or the paths slow enough so
> the busy check would return true enough to cause the dm layers queue not
> dispatch requests so quickly. They then had time to sit in the dm queue and
> merge with other bios.
> 
> If the device/transport is fast or the workload is low, the multipath_busy
> never returns busy, then we can hit Hannes's issue. For 4 paths, we just
> might not be able to fill up the paths and hit the busy check. With only 2
> paths, we might be slow enough or the workload is heavy enough to keep the
> paths busy and so we hit the busy check and do more merging.

Netapp is seeing this same issue.  It seems like we might want to make
multipath_busy more aggressive about returning busy, which would
probably require multipath tracking the size and frequency of the
requests.  If it determines that it's getting a lot of requests that
could have been merged, it could start throttling how fast requests are
getting pulled off the queue, even there underlying paths aren't busy.

-Ben

> 
> --
> dm-devel mailing list
> dm-devel@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel