On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 09:50 -0700, Doug Dumitru wrote: > I would like to comment on the BTT docs a bit. There are some design > points you might want to consider. > Hi Doug, Thanks for the design review - > > First, real use cases will have no read/write collisions. If you > think of a file system, the case of reading a block that is being > written or writing a single block twice just don't happen because the > data itself is non deterministic. The driver still needs to handle > these cases, but optimizing it for this is not all that logical. > Agreed - we did try to keep this in mind, and I still have a list of experiments to try that might further reduce the impact of collision handling on normal IO. > > Lets start at the BTT table. It would be useful if we could > distinguish between a stable block and one that is getting updated > now. An option is to encode the TRIM/ERROR bits as four "states" > (stable, updating, trimmed, error) and just use the BTT entry as an > index. This could probably point directly to the FLOG entry. The BTT > table, at four bytes, has atomic updates without locks, so two threads > can simultaneously update it to point to the FLOG table and then after > the update, see if they won. If they did not win, they can wait for > the first update to complete. The FLOG table could also have a > parallel RAM based BTT2 table to store spinlocks or linked-lists to > handle collisions. Then again, a simple spin or spin/sleep is > probably good enough. So first off, this made me realize the documentation was slightly dated w.r.t. the use of the 'E' and 'Z' flags - we currently (and the code reflects this) do use all four states from those two bits. (The next posting of this patchset should reflect this change). Bit Description 31 - 30 : Error and Zero flags - Used in the following way: Bit Description 31 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 00 Initial state. Reads return zeroes; Premap = Postmap 01 Zero state: Reads return zeroes 10 Error state: Reads fail; Writes clear 'E' bit 11 Normal Block – has valid postmap 29 - 0 : Mappings to internal 'postmap' blocks Apart from this, I didn't quite understand what you meant by: > ... and just use the BTT entry as an index. This could probably point directly to the FLOG entry. Care to elaborate with an example maybe? > > > The same works for readers. If you read a block, check the BTT table > after you finish the read. If it is the same, your read was good. If > it changed underneath you, or is pointing to a FLOG block, then you > need to wait or re-read. Again, the real-world frequency of > collisions is very low. This would let you eliminate the RTT table > entirely. There are a couple of issues I see with this - 1. This could, theoretically, suffer from the A-B-A problem - a writer could update the same mapping twice, ending up with an apparently untouched map entry, but the data has gone through churn while the reader was still reading it. 2. Writing/reading the RTT is cheap as it is entirely in DRAM memory, whereas another check on the map would mean NVDIMM IO, which could potentially be slow enough to offset any benefit from getting rid of the RTT. One of the pending tests I plan to do is to make the RTT a hash map instead of a list. i.e. Reader adds a refcount to rtt[postmap ABA], and writer checks just RTT[free-block]. This keeps things the same for the reader, but for writers, they are sapred from walking a list, at the cost of false hash collisions. Obviously, with this path we'd have to make the RTT a lot bigger than it currently is - and we'd need to figure out if the increased memory footprint, and hash collisions outweigh the cost of walking an in-memory list.. > > > One final optimization would be to keep the BTT table both in standard > RAM as well as in NV RAM. If standard RAM is faster, then reads could > lookup blocks without touching the NV driver. For 512G, this is 1B > blocks or 4G of RAM. Then again, if the NV RAM is just as fast, this > would not help. Perhaps an option. We've thought about this, and while it could help, the added complexity of keeping the two in sync may make it debatable - we'll have to re-evaluate once NVDIMMs become more easily available :) > > > I have gotten into a lot of trouble optimizing for fio collisions when > these collisions don't really impact real-workload performance. The > code has to be "correct" in the collision case, but it does not really > need to be fast. > > > > Doug Dumitru > > EasyCo LLC > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Verma, Vishal L > <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 12:33 -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > > Hi > > > > I looked at the new the persistent memory block device > driver > > (drivers/block/pmem.c and arch/x86/kernel/pmem.c) and it > seems that the > > interface between them is incorrect. > > > > If I want to use persistent memory in another driver, for a > different > > purpose, how can I make sure that that drivers/block/pmem.c > doesn't attach > > to this piece of memory and export it? It seems not > possible. > > drivers/block/pmem.c attaches to everything without regard > that there may > > be other users of persistent memory. > > > > I think a correct solution would be to add a partition table > at the > > beginning of persistent memory area and this partition table > would > > describe which parts belong to which programs - so that > different programs > > could use persistent memory and not step over each other's > data. Is there > > some effort to standardize the partition table ongoing? > > > > > > BTW. some journaling filesystems assume that 512-byte sector > is written > > atomically. drivers/block/pmem.c breaks this requirement. > Persistent > > memory only gurantees 8-byte atomic writes. > > > Hi Mikulas, > > I can answer this part - The idea is that file systems that > need sector > atomicity will use the "Block Translation Table" (BTT) [1]. It > would be > a stacked block device on top of a pmem device (or partition), > and file > systems would be able to use it either for the entire space to > get > atomicity for all blocks, or if they want to use DAX, make two > partitions, and enable the BTT only on one partition, and use > it as the > logdev. > > -Vishal > > [1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/17/950 > > > > > Mikulas > > _______________________________________________ > > Linux-nvdimm mailing list > > Linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm > > > -- > dm-devel mailing list > dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel > > > > > -- > Doug Dumitru > EasyCo LLC > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-nvdimm mailing list > Linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
