On Tue, Feb 09 2016 at 2:50am -0500, Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 02/07/2016 06:20 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 07 2016 at 11:54am -0500, > > Sagi Grimberg <sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >>>> If so, can you check with e.g. > >>>> perf record -ags -e LLC-load-misses sleep 10 && perf report whether this > >>>> workload triggers perhaps lock contention ? What you need to look for in > >>>> the perf output is whether any functions occupy more than 10% CPU time. > >>> > >>> I will, thanks for the tip! > >> > >> The perf report is very similar to the one that started this effort.. > >> > >> I'm afraid we'll need to resolve the per-target m->lock in order > >> to scale with NUMA... > > > > Could be. Just for testing, you can try the 2 topmost commits I've put > > here (once applied both __multipath_map and multipath_busy won't have > > _any_ locking.. again, very much test-only): > > > > http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/snitzer/linux.git/log/?h=devel2 > > > So, I gave those patches a spin. > Sad to say, they do _not_ resolve the issue fully. > > My testbed (2 paths per LUN, 40 CPUs, 4 cores) yields 505k IOPs with > those patches. That isn't a surprise. We knew the m->lock spinlock contention to be a problem. And NUMA makes it even worse. > Using a single path (without those patches, but still running > multipath on top of that path) the same testbed yields 550k IOPs. > Which very much smells like a lock contention ... > We do get a slight improvement, though; without those patches I > could only get about 350k IOPs. But still, I would somehow expect 2 > paths to be faster than just one .. https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2016-February/msg00036.html hint hint... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
