Re: [PATCH 0/32] Refcounts and rbtrees to increase luns above 255

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/16/2013 11:03 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 15:58 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
>> Hi Nicholas,
>>
>> This patchset uses krefs to refcount structures shared across threads.
>> LIO is full of these because configfs-based configuration actions can
>> be removing an object, even while that object is being used by a SCSI
>> command.
>>
>> Using kref to free the struct on whichever thread drops the last
>> reference allows us to avoid busy-waiting in configfs removal functions.
>> Next, this set removes the statically-sized tpg lun and deve arrays in
>> favor of dynamically adding entries into rbtrees. This reduces memory
>> consumption and allows more than 255 luns per tpg and initiator mapping.
>>
>> Except for some rbtree lookups, these changes are entirely in the
>> configuration paths of Lio. I have tested these as extensively as I can,
>> and it's ready for wider testing.
>>
>> Note: patch 22 converts a percpu refcount to a normal kref. I'd argue
>> the benefit is really in the "refcount" part rather than the "percpu",
>> so a simpler kref does the job, but we might want to discuss this some
>> more.
>>
> 
> It would be helpful to breakup future patches into different series
> based on:
> 
>   * Bugfixes
>   * New features
>   * Minor improvements
> 
But the LUN addressing improvements is interesting.

What I found during development of the 64bit LUN patchset is
that the target core stuff has a very rudimentary LUN handling:
- 256 LUNs only
- LUNs are kept in a static array
- Identity mapping between LUN numbers and array indices.

What I _really_ would like to have is to do away with the
LUN array, and introduce a dynamic LUN mapping.
This will allow us to easily implement different LUN enumeration
methods (Think of hierarchical LUNs ...).

Also the assumption that a static array is always faster for
lookup than a linked list is wrong.
A static array is faster if the entire array fits into the processor
cache. If it doesn't we basically have an immediate
cache miss _for every array access_.
Then linked lists etc really are faster.

So do not take things at face value; only real measurements
count here.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		      zSeries & Storage
hare@xxxxxxx			      +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: J. Hawn, J. Guild, F. Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux