Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v2 00/22] add Object Storage Media Pool (mpool)

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 2:59 PM Nabeel Meeramohideen Mohamed
(nmeeramohide) <nmeeramohide@micron.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:03 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > I don't think this belongs into the kernel.  It is a classic case for
> > infrastructure that should be built in userspace.  If anything is
> > missing to implement it in userspace with equivalent performance we
> > need to improve out interfaces, although io_uring should cover pretty
> > much everything you need.
>
> Hi Christoph,
>
> We previously considered moving the mpool object store code to user-space.
> However, by implementing mpool as a device driver, we get several benefits
> in terms of scalability, performance, and functionality. In doing so, we relied
> only on standard interfaces and did not make any changes to the kernel.
>
> (1)  mpool's "mcache map" facility allows us to memory-map (and later unmap)
> a collection of logically related objects with a single system call. The objects in
> such a collection are created at different times, physically disparate, and may
> even reside on different media class volumes.
>
> For our HSE storage engine application, there are commonly 10's to 100's of
> objects in a given mcache map, and 75,000 total objects mapped at a given time.
>
> Compared to memory-mapping objects individually, the mcache map facility
> scales well because it requires only a single system call and single vm_area_struct
> to memory-map a complete collection of objects.

Why can't that be a batch of mmap calls on io_uring?

> (2) The mcache map reaper mechanism proactively evicts object data from the page
> cache based on object-level metrics. This provides significant performance benefit
> for many workloads.
>
> For example, we ran YCSB workloads B (95/5 read/write mix)  and C (100% read)
> against our HSE storage engine using the mpool driver in a 5.9 kernel.
> For each workload, we ran with the reaper turned-on and turned-off.
>
> For workload B, the reaper increased throughput 1.77x, while reducing 99.99% tail
> latency for reads by 39% and updates by 99%. For workload C, the reaper increased
> throughput by 1.84x, while reducing the 99.99% read tail latency by 63%. These
> improvements are even more dramatic with earlier kernels.

What metrics proved useful and can the vanilla page cache / page
reclaim mechanism be augmented with those metrics?

>
> (3) The mcache map facility can memory-map objects on NVMe ZNS drives that were
> created using the Zone Append command. This patch set does not support ZNS, but
> that work is in progress and we will be demonstrating our HSE storage engine
> running on mpool with ZNS drives at FMS 2020.
>
> (4) mpool's immutable object model allows the driver to support concurrent reading
> of object data directly and memory-mapped without a performance penalty to verify
> coherence. This allows background operations, such as LSM-tree compaction, to
> operate efficiently and without polluting the page cache.
>

How is this different than existing background operations / defrag
that filesystems perform today? Where are the opportunities to improve
those operations?

> (5) Representing an mpool as a /dev/mpool/<mpool-name> device file provides a
> convenient mechanism for controlling access to and managing the multiple storage
> volumes, and in the future pmem devices, that may comprise an logical mpool.

Christoph and I have talked about replacing the pmem driver's
dependence on device-mapper for pooling. What extensions would be
needed for the existing driver arch?

_______________________________________________
Linux-nvme mailing list
Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme