> -----Original Message----- > From: ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sage Weil > Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 6:38 AM > To: Wang, Zhiqiang > Cc: sjust@xxxxxxxxxx; ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: The design of the eviction improvement > > On Mon, 20 Jul 2015, Wang, Zhiqiang wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This is a follow-up of one of the CDS session at > http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/Improvement_on_the_cache_tieri > ng_eviction. We discussed the drawbacks of the current eviction algorithm and > several ways to improve it. Seems like the LRU variants is the right way to go. I > come up with some design points after the CDS, and want to discuss it with you. > It is an approximate 2Q algorithm, combining some benefits of the clock > algorithm, similar to what the linux kernel does for the page cache. > > Unfortunately I missed this last CDS so I'm behind on the discussion. I have a > few questions though... > > > # Design points: > > > > ## LRU lists > > - Maintain LRU lists at the PG level. > > The SharedLRU and SimpleLRU implementation in the current code have a > > max_size, which limits the max number of elements in the list. This > > mostly looks like a MRU, though its name implies they are LRUs. Since > > the object size may vary in a PG, it's not possible to caculate the > > total number of objects which the cache tier can hold ahead of time. > > We need a new LRU implementation with no limit on the size. > > This last sentence seems to me to be the crux of it. Assuming we have an > OSD based by flash storing O(n) objects, we need a way to maintain an LRU of > O(n) objects in memory. The current hitset-based approach was taken based > on the assumption that this wasn't feasible--or at least we didn't know how to > implmement such a thing. If it is, or we simply want to stipulate that cache > tier OSDs get gobs of RAM to make it possible, then lots of better options > become possible... > > Let's say you have a 1TB SSD, with an average object size of 1MB -- that's > 1 million objects. At maybe ~100bytes per object of RAM for an LRU entry > that's 100MB... so not so unreasonable, perhaps! I was having the same question before proposing this. I did the similar calculation and thought it would be ok to use this many memory :-) > > > - Two lists for each PG: active and inactive Objects are first put > > into the inactive list when they are accessed, and moved between these two > lists based on some criteria. > > Object flag: active, referenced, unevictable, dirty. > > - When an object is accessed: > > 1) If it's not in both of the lists, it's put on the top of the > > inactive list > > 2) If it's in the inactive list, and the referenced flag is not set, the referenced > flag is set, and it's moved to the top of the inactive list. > > 3) If it's in the inactive list, and the referenced flag is set, the referenced flag > is cleared, and it's removed from the inactive list, and put on top of the active > list. > > 4) If it's in the active list, and the referenced flag is not set, the referenced > flag is set, and it's moved to the top of the active list. > > 5) If it's in the active list, and the referenced flag is set, it's moved to the top > of the active list. > > - When selecting objects to evict: > > 1) Objects at the bottom of the inactive list are selected to evict. They are > removed from the inactive list. > > 2) If the number of the objects in the inactive list becomes low, some of the > objects at the bottom of the active list are moved to the inactive list. For those > objects which have the referenced flag set, they are given one more chance in > the active list. They are moved to the top of the active list with the referenced > flag cleared. For those objects which don't have the referenced flag set, they > are moved to the inactive list, with the referenced flag set. So that they can be > quickly promoted to the active list when necessary. > > > > ## Combine flush with eviction > > - When evicting an object, if it's dirty, it's flushed first. After flushing, it's > evicted. If not dirty, it's evicted directly. > > - This means that we won't have separate activities and won't set different > ratios for flush and evict. Is there a need to do so? > > - Number of objects to evict at a time. 'evict_effort' acts as the priority, which > is used to calculate the number of objects to evict. > > As someone else mentioned in a follow-up, the reason we let the dirty level be > set lower than the full level is that it provides headroom so that objects can be > quickly evicted (delete, no flush) to make room for new writes or new > promotions. > > That said, we probably can/should streamline the flush so that an evict can > immediately follow without waiting for the agent to come around again. > (I don't think we do that now?) I was afraid of having to maintain different lists for flush/evict. So I proposed to combine flush with evict. But seems like we don't need to. When reaching the dirty ratio and selecting objects to flush, we look for dirty objects from the inactive list. The objects are marked clean and kept in the same position in the LRU list after flushing. When evicting objects, clean objects in the inactive list are selected. Dirty objects are ignored. This will keep the flush/evict the same as current implementation. Make sense? > > sage > > > > ## LRU lists Snapshotting > > - The two lists are snapshotted persisted periodically. > > - Only one copy needs to be saved. The old copy is removed when persisting > the lists. The saved lists are used to restore the LRU lists when OSD reboots. > > > > Any comments/feedbacks are welcomed. > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" > > in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo > > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body > of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
