On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 09:07:56AM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-08-23 at 15:48 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 11:06:28PM +0200, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > If the mptable is very large (for example, in a configuration with
> > > lots of maps assigned individual aliases), merge_mptable may get
> > > very slow because it needs to make O(n^2) string comparisons (with
> > > n being the number of mptable entries). WWID strings often differ
> > > only in the last few bytes, causing a lot of CPU time spent in
> > > strcmp().
> > >
> > > merge_mptable is executed whenever multipath or multipathd is
> > > started, that
> > > is, also for "multipath -u" and "multipath -U" invocations from
> > > udev rules.
> > > Optimize it by sorting the mptable before merging. This way we
> > > don't need
> > > to iterate towards the end of the vector searching for duplicates.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > libmultipath/config.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > libmultipath/vector.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > libmultipath/vector.h | 1 +
> > > 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/libmultipath/config.c b/libmultipath/config.c
> > > index ab8b26e..a2c79a4 100644
> > > --- a/libmultipath/config.c
> > > +++ b/libmultipath/config.c
> > > @@ -520,6 +520,14 @@ merge_mpe(struct mpentry *dst, struct mpentry
> > > *src)
> > > merge_num(mode);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int wwid_compar(const void *p1, const void *p2)
> > > +{
> > > + const char *wwid1 = (*(struct mpentry * const *)p1)->wwid;
> > > + const char *wwid2 = (*(struct mpentry * const *)p2)->wwid;
> > > +
> > > + return strcmp(wwid1, wwid2);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > void merge_mptable(vector mptable)
> > > {
> > > struct mpentry *mp1, *mp2;
> > > @@ -533,10 +541,13 @@ void merge_mptable(vector mptable)
> > > free_mpe(mp1);
> > > continue;
> > > }
> > > + }
> > > + vector_sort(mptable, wwid_compar);
> > > + vector_foreach_slot(mptable, mp1, i) {
> > > j = i + 1;
> > > vector_foreach_slot_after(mptable, mp2, j) {
> > > - if (!mp2->wwid || strcmp(mp1->wwid, mp2-
> > > >wwid))
> > > - continue;
> > > + if (strcmp(mp1->wwid, mp2->wwid))
> > > + break;
> > > condlog(1, "%s: duplicate multipath config
> > > section for %s",
> > > __func__, mp1->wwid);
> > > merge_mpe(mp2, mp1);
> >
> > The way merge_mpe() works, values are only copied from mp1's
> > variables
> > if the corresponding variable is unset in mp2. This requires the
> > original order of mp1 and mp2 to be unchanged by the sorting
> > algorithm,
> > but according to the qsort() man page "If two members compare as
> > equal,
> > their order in the sorted array is undefined."
> >
> > One quick and dirty way we could fix this is to add a variable to
> > struct
> > mptable called config_idx, which is its index in the config file. If
> > the wwids are equal, you compare that.
>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I believe it's easier than that: as we're
> passed the offsets into the array (aka struct mpentry **), we can
> simply compare p1 and p2 if the strings are equal.
>
> Agree?
I don't think so. Comparing the array offsets assumes that two mpentries
are still ordered correctly when they are compared against each other.
But the way quick sort works, array elements can get swapped around
multiple times, based on whether they are larger or smaller than some
pivot point. It's possible that the two mpentries already switched order
before they were compared.
Essentially, all comparing the offset does is force qsort to not switch
the place of two otherwise equal entries. But for speed reasons alone,
there is no reason why qsort would bother to swap the location of two
equal entries.
Here's an example of what could go wrong:
Say you start with the array (I'm also tracking the mpentry's original
config index)
array offset: 0 1 2 3 4
config_idx: 0 1 2 3 4
wwid: D B C D A
Say qsort picks the element at array offset 2 (wwid "C") as the pivot.
Usually quicksort works by walking towards the center of the array
segment from both ends, swapping the positions of elements bigger than
the pivot with the positions of ones smaller than or equal to the pivot.
So after the first round you would swap the element at array offset 4
(wwid "A") with the element at array offset 0 (wwid "D"). This would
give you.
array offset: 0 1 2 3 4
config_idx 4 1 2 3 0
wwid: A B C D D
After this no further swaps will happen using the original
wwid_compar(). Adding a comparison to the array offset won't change
anything. But the wwid "D" mpentry that was orinally earlier in the
config (config_idx = 0) is now after the wwid "D" mpentry that was
originally later (config_idx = 3).
Comparing the config_idx will cause the elements at array offset 3 and 4
to switch places, restoring their original ordering.
-Ben
>
> Martin
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
