On 07/22/2020 08:17 AM, Song Liu wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 10:38 PM Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2020/7/20 13:26, Coly Li wrote:
On 2020/7/20 12:58, Xiao Ni wrote:
Now the discard request is split by chunk size. So it takes a long time to finish mkfs on
disks which support discard function. This patch improve handling raid10 discard request.
It uses the similar way with raid0(29efc390b).
But it's a little complex than raid0. Because raid10 has different layout. If raid10 is
offset layout and the discard request is smaller than stripe size. There are some holes
when we submit discard bio to underlayer disks.
For example: five disks (disk1 - disk5)
D01 D02 D03 D04 D05
D05 D01 D02 D03 D04
D06 D07 D08 D09 D10
D10 D06 D07 D08 D09
The discard bio just wants to discard from D03 to D10. For disk3, there is a hole between
D03 and D08. For disk4, there is a hole between D04 and D09. D03 is a chunk, raid10_write_request
can handle one chunk perfectly. So the part that is not aligned with stripe size is still
handled by raid10_write_request.
If reshape is running when discard bio comes and the discard bio spans the reshape position,
raid10_write_request is responsible to handle this discard bio.
I did a test with this patch set.
Without patch:
time mkfs.xfs /dev/md0
real4m39.775s
user0m0.000s
sys0m0.298s
With patch:
time mkfs.xfs /dev/md0
real0m0.105s
user0m0.000s
sys0m0.007s
nvme3n1 259:1 0 477G 0 disk
└─nvme3n1p1 259:10 0 50G 0 part
nvme4n1 259:2 0 477G 0 disk
└─nvme4n1p1 259:11 0 50G 0 part
nvme5n1 259:6 0 477G 0 disk
└─nvme5n1p1 259:12 0 50G 0 part
nvme2n1 259:9 0 477G 0 disk
└─nvme2n1p1 259:15 0 50G 0 part
nvme0n1 259:13 0 477G 0 disk
└─nvme0n1p1 259:14 0 50G 0 part
v1:
Coly helps to review these patches and give some suggestions:
One bug is found. If discard bio is across one stripe but bio size is bigger
than one stripe size. After spliting, the bio will be NULL. In this version,
it checks whether discard bio size is bigger than 2*stripe_size.
In raid10_end_discard_request, it's better to check R10BIO_Uptodate is set
or not. It can avoid write memory to improve performance.
Add more comments for calculating addresses.
Signed-off-by: Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx>
The code looks good to me, you may add my Reviewed-by: Coly Li
<colyli@xxxxxxx>
But I still suggest you to add a more detailed commit log, to explain
how the discard range of each component disk is decided. Anyway this is
just a suggestion, it is up to you.
Thank you for this work.
In raid10_end_discard_request(), the first 5 lines for local variables
declaration, there are 3 lines starts with improper blanks (should be
tab '\t'). You may find this minor issue by checkpatch.pl I guess.
After fixing this format issue, you stil have my Reviewed-by :-)
Coly Li
Thanks to Xiao for the patch And thanks to Coly for the review.
I did an experiment with a patch to increase max_discard_sectors,
like:
diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
index 14b1ba732cd7d..0b15397ebfaf9 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
@@ -3762,7 +3762,7 @@ static int raid10_run(struct mddev *mddev)
chunk_size = mddev->chunk_sectors << 9;
if (mddev->queue) {
blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(mddev->queue,
- mddev->chunk_sectors);
+ UINT_MAX);
blk_queue_max_write_same_sectors(mddev->queue, 0);
blk_queue_max_write_zeroes_sectors(mddev->queue, 0);
blk_queue_io_min(mddev->queue, chunk_size);
This simple change reduces the run time of mkfs.xfs on my SSD
from 5+ minutes to about 14 seconds. Of course this is not as good
as ~2s seconds with the set. But I wonder whether the time saving
justifies extra complexity. Thoughts on this?
Also, as Coly mentioned, please run checkpatch.pl on the patches.
I have seen warnings on all 3 patches in the set.
Thanks,
Song
Hi Song
The mkfs.xfs still takes a very long time if just modifying the max
discard sectors in my environment.
But it doesn't make sense in your test. It still needs to split the bio
based on the chunk size. So it don't
make a difference only modifying the mas discard sectors?
And thanks Coly for the review. I'll fix the problem in the next version.
Regards
Xiao
