On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:18:48AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > This short series includes clean-ups related to performance-related > work that you and I have discussed in the past. Thanks, applying. > Let me give an > update on the progress of that work as context for these patches. > > We had discussed moving the generation of RDMA Read requests from > ->recvfrom up into the NFSD proc functions that handle WRITE and > SYMLINK operations. There were two reasons for this change: > > 1. To enable the upper layer to choose the pages that act as the > RDMA Read sink buffer, rather than always using anonymous pages > for this purpose > > 2. To reduce the average latency of ->recvfrom calls on RPC/RDMA, > which are serialized per transport connection > > I was able to successfully prototype this change. The scope of this > prototype was limited to exploring how to move the RDMA Read code. > I have not yet tried to implement a per-FH page selection mechanism. > > There was no measurable performance impact of this change. The good > news is that this confirms that the RDMA Read code can be moved > upstairs without negative performance consequences. The not-so-good > news: > > - Serialization of ->recvfrom might not be the problem that I > predicted. > > - I don't have a macro benchmark that mixes small NFS requests with > NFS requests with Read chunks in a way that can assess the > serialization issue. > > - The most significant current bottleneck for NFS WRITE performance > is on the Linux client, which obscures performance improvements in > the server-side NFS WRITE path. The bottleneck is generic, not > related to the use of pNFS or the choice of transport type. Would it be practical to test with an artificial workload that takes the client out of the test? But if there are client issues then they need to be fixed anyway, so the better use of time may be fixing those first, and then we get to test the server with more realistic workloads.... > To complete my prototype, I disabled the server's DRC. Going forward > with this work will require some thought about how to deal with non- > idempotent requests with Read chunks. Some possibilities: > > - For RPC Calls with Read chunks, don't include the payload in the > checksum. This could be done by providing a per-transport checksum > callout that would manage the details. I believe the checksum is there to prevent rpc's being incorrectly treated as replays on xid wraparound. If we're skipping it in the case of writes (for example), then we may be slightly increasing the chance of data coruption in some cases. I don't know if it's significant. > - Support late RDMA Reads for session-based versions of NFS, but not > for earlier versions of NFS which utilize the legacy DRC. To me that sounds like it might be simplest to start off with? > - Adopt an entirely different DRC hashing mechanism. I guess we could delay the hashing somehow too. But I'd rather not invest a lot of time trying to make NFSv2/v3 better, the priority for older protocols is just to avoid regressions. --b. > > --- > > Chuck Lever (4): > svcrdma: Avoid releasing a page in svc_xprt_release() > svcrdma: Clean up Read chunk path > NFSD: Refactor the generic write vector fill helper > NFSD: Handle full-length symlinks > > > fs/nfsd/nfs3proc.c | 5 ++ > fs/nfsd/nfs4proc.c | 23 ++------- > fs/nfsd/nfsproc.c | 5 ++ > include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h | 4 +- > net/sunrpc/svc.c | 78 ++++++++++++------------------- > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_recvfrom.c | 9 ++-- > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_rw.c | 32 +++++-------- > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/svc_rdma_sendto.c | 4 +- > 8 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-) > > -- > Chuck Lever -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
