2024年6月6日(木) 8:42 Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx>: > I think there are multiple ways to go forward here: > (a) Make the number of zpools a config option, leave the default as > 32, but allow special use cases to set it to 1 or similar. This is > probably not preferable because it is not clear to users how to set > it, but the idea is that no one will have to set it except special use > cases such as Erhard's (who will want to set it to 1 in this case). > > (b) Make the number of zpools scale linearly with the number of CPUs. > Maybe something like nr_cpus/4 or nr_cpus/8. The problem with this > approach is that with a large number of CPUs, too many zpools will > start having diminishing returns. Fragmentation will keep increasing, > while the scalability/concurrency gains will diminish. > > (c) Make the number of zpools scale logarithmically with the number of > CPUs. Maybe something like 4log2(nr_cpus). This will keep the number > of zpools from increasing too much and close to the status quo. The > problem is that at a small number of CPUs (e.g. 2), 4log2(nr_cpus) > will actually give a nr_zpools > nr_cpus. So we will need to come up > with a more fancy magic equation (e.g. 4log2(nr_cpus/4)). > I just posted a patch to limit the number of zpools, with some theoretical background explained in the code comments. I believe that 2 * CPU linearly is sufficient to reduce contention, but the scale can be reduced further. All CPUs are trying to allocate/free zswap is unlikely to happen. How many concurrent accesses were the original 32 zpools supposed to handle? I think it was for 16 cpu or more. or nr_cpus/4 would be enough? -- <flintglass@xxxxxxxxx>
