Re: [PATCHv2 0/6] dm-zoned: improve cache performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, May 19 2020 at  6:36pm -0400,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2020/05/19 17:14, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > here's an update to dm-zoned to separate out cache zones.
> > In the update to metadata version 2 the regular drive was split
> > in emulated zones, which were handled just like 'normal' random
> > write zones.
> > This causes a performance drop once these emulated zones have
> > been mapped, as typicall the random zones from the zoned drive
> > will perform noticeably slower than those from the regular drive.
> > (After all, that was kinda the idea of using a regular disk in
> > the first place ...)
> > 
> > So in this patchset I've introduced a separate 'cache' zone type,
> > allowing us to differentiate between emulated and real zones.
> > With that we can switch the allocation mode to use only cache
> > zones, and use random zones similar to sequential write zones.
> > That avoids the performance issue noted above.
> > 
> > I've also found that the sequential write zones perform noticeably
> > better on writes (which is all we're caching anyway), so I've
> > added another patch switching the allocation routine from preferring
> > sequential write zones for reclaim.
> > 
> > This patchset also contains some minor fixes like remving an unused
> > variable etc.
> > 
> > As usual, comments and reviews are welcome.
> 
> I ran this overnight with no problems. Throughput results attached.
> Reclaim seems to be a little too aggressive as it triggers very early. But we
> can tune that later if really needed: the combination of ext4 writing all over
> the place and the faster cache zones on SSD may simply result in a percentage of
> free cache zones becoming low very quickly, in which case, reclaim is working
> exactly as expected :)

I've staged this series for 5.8 in linux-next

Just to make sure no regressions due to all the metadata2 changes: Did
you happen to verify all worked as expected without using an extra
drive?

> Mike,
> 
> With the NVMe io_opt fix patch applied, the alignment warning for the target
> limits is gone.

OK

Thanks,
Mike

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




[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux