Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
Thanks for the response Mike.
On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 10:43 -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
Chandra Seetharaman wrote:
Hello All,
During testing with the latest SCSI DH Handler on a rdac storage, Babu
found that the failover time with 100+ luns takes about 15 minutes,
which is not good.
We found that the problem is due to the fact that we serialize activate
in dm on the work queue.
I thought we talked about this during the review?
Yes, we did and the results were compared to the virgin code (w.r.t rdac
handler) and the results were good (also I used only 49 luns) :
http://marc.info/?l=dm-devel&m=120889858019762&w=2
We can solve the problem in rdac handler in 2 ways
1. batch up the activates (mode_selects) and send few of them.
2. Do mode selects in async mode.
I think most of the ugliness in the original async mode was due to
trying to use the REQ_BLOCK* path. With the scsi_dh_activate path, it
should now be easier because in the send path we do not have to worry
about queue locks being held and context.
little confused... we still are using REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC
But we only have one level of requests. I am talking about when we tried
to send a request with REQ_BLOCK_LINUX_BLOCK to the module to tell it to
send another request/s with REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC. Now we just have the
callout and then like you said we can fire REQ_TYPE_BLOCK_PC reuqests
from there.
I think when I wrote easier above, I meant to write a cleaner
implementation.
I think we could just use blk_execute_rq_nowait to send the IO. Then we
would have a workqueue/thread per something (maybe per dh module I
thought), that would be queued/notified when the IO completed. The
thread could then process the IO and handle the next stage if needed.
Why use the thread you might wonder? I think it fixes another issue with
the original async mode, and makes it easier if the scsi_dh module has
can you elaborate the issue ?
I think people did not like the complexity of trying to send IO with
soft irq context with spin locks held, then also having the extra
REQ_BLOCK_LINUX_BLOCK layering.
to send more IO. When using the thread it would not have to worry about
the queue_lock being held in the IO completion path and does not have to
worry about being run from more restrictive contexts.
You think queue_lock contention is an issue ?
I agree with the restrictive context issue though.
So, your suggestion is to move everything to async ?
Do mean vs #1 or would you want to seperate and send some stuff async
and synchronously?
Just wondering if anybody had seen the same problem in other storages
(EMC, HP and Alua).
They should all have the same problem.
Please share your experiences, so we can come up with a solution that
works for all hardware handlers.
regards,
chandra
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
