New CAM locking preview

[Adrian Chadd]

Cool!

I assume you've run this with full witness debugging enabled, to catch lock
ordering issues?

This is great. I look forward to per-CPU, pinned, completion threads that I
can do interesting things with (like schedule aio-sendfile completions..)


-adrian



On 15 August 2013 14:40, Alexander Motin <mav at freebsd.org> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Last weeks I've made substantial progress on my CAM locking work. In fact,
> at this moment I think I've tied all loose ends good enough to consider the
> new design viable and implementation worth further testing and bug fixing.
> So I would like to ask for review of my work from everybody who interested
> in CAM internals.
>
> In short, my idea was to split single per-SIM lock, that creates huge
> congestion under high IOPS, into several smaller ones. So design I've
> finally chosen includes such locks:
>  1) New per-device (per-LUN) locks to protect state of the devices and
> respective periphs. In most cases peripheral drivers just use that lock
> instead of SIM lock used before, so code modification is minimal and
> straightforward.
>  2) New per-target lock to protect list of LUNs fetched from the device.
>  3) Old single per-SIM lock to protect SIM driver internals, but only
> that. No parts of CAM itself use that lock. Keeping it for SIMs allows to
> keep API and hopefully ABI compatibility. Reducing its scope allows to
> reduce congestion.
>  4) New per-SIM lock to protect SIM and device command queues. That allows
> execute queued commands from any context unrelated to other locks. Also
> this lock serializes accesses to sim_action() method for the most of
> commands, this allows to mostly avoid busy spilling on SIM lock collision.
>  5) New per-bus locks to protect target, device and periphs reference
> counters. It allows to create and destroy paths unrelated to other locks in
> any possible context.
>
> Numbers above also define supposed lock ordering: while holding per-device
> lock 1) is allowed to request SIM lock 3), but not backward. Cases where
> opposite is required (command completions and async events) are handled via
> queuing events via several completion threads. The rest of locks are
> self-contained and does not really suppose cascading.
>
> All these changes combined with GEOM direct dispatch (it will be next
> separate project) allow to double system performance in disk I/O
> microbenchmarks, comparing to present head, same as it was announced on
> 2013-05 DevSummit: http://people.freebsd.org/~**mav/camlock.pdf<http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/camlock.pdf>. Tests without GEOM changes also show performance improvement, but limited
> by heavy bottleneck at the GEOM g_up/g_down threads at the level of 5-20%.
>
> Project sources could be found at SVN projects/camlock branch:
> http://svnweb.freebsd.org/**base/projects/camlock/<http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/projects/camlock/>. Many early changes from that branch are already integrated to head, so to
> simplify review the rest patches for changes before r254059 were manually
> remade and could be found here: http://people.freebsd.org/~**
> mav/camlock_patches/ <http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/camlock_patches/> .
>
> These changes do not require controller driver modifications, keeping KPIs
> and hopefully KBIs intact, but create base for later work to use multiqueue
> capabilities of new controllers.
>
> This work is sponsored by iXsystems, Inc.
>
> --
> Alexander Motin
> ______________________________**_________________
> freebsd-hackers at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-**hackers<http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@**
> freebsd.org <freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe at freebsd.org>"
>