Hi Xiubo & Co, On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 14:25 +0800, lixiubo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Xiubo Li <lixiubo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Changed for V6: > - Remove the tcmu_vma_close(). Since the unmap thread will do the same for it > - The unmap thread will skip the busy devices. > - Using and testing the V5 version 3 weeks and the V6 for about 1 week, all in a higher IOPS environment: > * using fio and dd commands > * using about 4 targets based user:rbd/user:file backend > * set the global pool size to 512 * 1024 blocks * block_size, for 4K page size, the size is 2G. > * each target here needs more than 1100 blocks. > * fio: -iodepth 16 -thread -rw=[read write] -bs=[1M] -size=20G -numjobs=10 -runtime=1000 ... > * restart the tcmu-runner at any time. > > Changed for V5: > - Rebase to the newest target-pending repository. > - Add as many comments as possbile to make the patch more readable. > - Move tcmu_handle_completions() in timeout handler to unmap thread > and then replace the spin lock with mutex lock(because the unmap_* > or zap_* may goto sleep) to simplify the patch and the code. > - Thanks very much for Mike's tips and suggestions. > - Tested this for more than 3 days by: > * using fio and dd commands > * using about 1~5 targets > * set the global pool size to [512 1024 2048 512 * 1024] blocks * block_size > * each target here needs more than 450 blocks when running in my environments. > * fio: -iodepth [1 2 4 8 16] -thread -rw=[read write] -bs=[1K 2K 3K 5K 7K 16K 64K 1M] -size=20G -numjobs=10 -runtime=1000 ... > * in the tcmu-runner, try to touch blocks out of tcmu_cmds' iov[] manually > * restart the tcmu-runner at any time. > * in my environment for the low IOPS case: the read throughput goes from about 5200KB/s to 6700KB/s; the write throughput goes from about 3000KB/s to 3700KB/s. > > Xiubo Li (2): > tcmu: Add dynamic growing data area feature support > tcmu: Add global data block pool support > > drivers/target/target_core_user.c | 598 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 469 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-) > So based upon the feedback from MNC, this looks OK to merge. It looks like there is one bug as reported by MNC introduced by patch #1. Please go ahead and post an incremental patch to address this at your earliest convenience. Thank you.
