On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:05:45PM +0000, Martin Wilck wrote: > On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 11:33 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > To enable future changes, mp->pgpolicyfn() now takes a vector of > > paths instead of always using mp->paths. > > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > libmultipath/pgpolicies.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++---------------- > > --- > > libmultipath/pgpolicies.h | 10 +++++----- > > libmultipath/structs.h | 2 +- > > 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > > > The following applies to this patch and its successors (11-13, 15). > > This is technically correct, beautiful code, but I'm not sure if this > is where we want to go. Do we really need that strict separation > between "normal" and "marginal" path groups? > > As I already noted in my reply to 14/16, I'd favor an approach where > we would factor in the "marginality" of a path when calculating the > priority and the grouping. For example, when working with ALUA and > group_by_prio, rather than lumping all marginal paths together, we may > want to group like this: > > - active/optimized, healthy > - active/non-optimized, healthy > - active/optimized, marginal > - active/non-optimized, marginal > - standby > - other > > The priorities of these groups would be up to discussion. Today I'm not > even sure if "marginal" property should take precedence over > "optimized" property, or vice-versa. It might actually depend on the > situation and the degree of "shakiness" ... Possibly, if we include some way measuring the degree of shakiness. In my experience, by far the most common reason that a path is declared marginal is because something has gone wrong where the path_checker is saying the the path is good, but virtually no I/O to the path is succeeding. In this case you just want to keep that path from continually being brought back and then failing. That's why marking the path as down was a pretty decent idea. In fact, one of my worries with the marginal pathgroups code is that it makes it impossible for you to ever trigger your no_path_retry limit in this case, which some customers may still want. If your only path is on that fails virtually all IO, then it's the same having no paths. All this is to say that I agree that with our current marginal paths algorithms, you can make a case that you could detect a path that you might not want to use if there are better options, but which doesn't deserve to be the absolute last resort. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that we'd run into this case enough for it to be worth adding too much complexity to the code. Instead, I'm still more worried about the opposite issue, where you would rather have the multipath device timeout and throw an error, rather than continue to try to use a marginal path. > OK: This is future material. But if we take this patch and its > successors, be'd have it cast in stone that "marginal/normal" is the > main distinction, taking precedence over everything else, and I'm not > convinced that that's the way to go. > > We could obtain the semantics of your current patch set by assigning a > negative prio bias to marginal paths, and changing the grouping > algorithms (except group_by_prio) such that they take the marginal > property into account (e.g. group_by_node_name would pretend that all > marginal paths have a common "node name" and lump them together). This > would allow us to keep our current simple mpp->pg vector and represent > the marginal paths simply by one (the last) PG in this vector. > > The benefit would be that this model would be more flexible for more > sophisticated priority models in the future. I'll take a look at doing this in a way that would make it easier to fine tune this in the future. -Ben > Regards, > Martin > -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
