Message-ID: <CAHFUYDpFeK+mkRSkzAydu9emGSzpPxu3QuTN73uatADvfRqzgw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:59:39 -0800
From:   Chris Unkel <cunkel@...vescale.com>
To:     Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-raid <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mdraid sb and bitmap write alignment on 512e drives

Hi Xiao,

That particular array is super1.2.  The block trace was captured on
the disk underlying the partition device on which the md array member
resides, not on the partition device itself.  The partition starts
2048 sectors into the disk (1MB).  So the 2048 sectors offset to the
beginning of the partition, plus the 8 sector superblock offset for
super1.2 ends up at 2056.

Sorry for the confusion there.

Regards,

 --Chris

On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 11:04 PM Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/23/2020 11:31 AM, Christopher Unkel wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > While investigating some performance issues on mdraid 10 volumes
> > formed with "512e" disks (4k native/physical sector size but with 512
> > byte sector emulation), I've found two cases where mdraid will
> > needlessly issue writes that start on 4k byte boundary, but are are
> > shorter than 4k:
> >
> > 1. writes of the raid superblock; and
> > 2. writes of the last page of the write-intent bitmap.
> >
> > The following is an excerpt of a blocktrace of one of the component
> > members of a mdraid 10 volume during a 4k write near the end of the
> > array:
> >
> >    8,32  11        2     0.000001687   711  D  WS 2064 + 8 [kworker/11:1H]
> > * 8,32  11        5     0.001454119   711  D  WS 2056 + 1 [kworker/11:1H]
> > * 8,32  11        8     0.002847204   711  D  WS 2080 + 7 [kworker/11:1H]
> >    8,32  11       11     0.003700545  3094  D  WS 11721043920 + 8 [md127_raid1]
> >    8,32  11       14     0.308785692   711  D  WS 2064 + 8 [kworker/11:1H]
> > * 8,32  11       17     0.310201697   711  D  WS 2056 + 1 [kworker/11:1H]
> >    8,32  11       20     5.500799245   711  D  WS 2064 + 8 [kworker/11:1H]
> > * 8,32  11       23    15.740923558   711  D  WS 2080 + 7 [kworker/11:1H]
> >
> > Note the starred transactions, which each start on a 4k boundary, but
> > are less than 4k in length, and so will use the 512-byte emulation.
> > Sector 2056 holds the superblock, and is written as a single 512-byte
> > write.  Sector 2086 holds the bitmap bit relevant to the written
> > sector.  When it is written the active bits of the last page of the
> > bitmap are written, starting at sector 2080, padded out to the end of
> > the 512-byte logical sector as required.  This results in a 3.5kb
> > write, again using the 512-byte emulation.
>
> Hi Christopher
>
> Which superblock version do you use? If it's super1.1, superblock starts
> at 0 sector.
> If it's super1.2, superblock starts at 8 sector. If it's super1.0,
> superblock starts at the
> end of device and bitmap is before superblock. As mentioned above,
> bitmap is behind
> the superblock, so it should not be super1.0. So I have a question why
> does 2056 hold
> the superblock?
>
> Regards
> Xiao
>
> >
> > Note that in some arrays the last page of the bitmap may be
> > sufficiently full that they are not affected by the issue with the
> > bitmap write.
> >
> > As there can be a substantial penalty to using the 512-byte sector
> > emulation (turning writes into read-modify writes if the relevant
> > sector is not in the drive's cache) I believe it makes sense to pad
> > these writes out to a 4k boundary.  The writes are already padded out
> > for "4k native" drives, where the short access is illegal.
> >
> > The following patch set changes the superblock and bitmap writes to
> > respect the physical block size (e.g. 4k for today's 512e drives) when
> > possible.  In each case there is already logic for padding out to the
> > underlying logical sector size.  I reuse or repeat the logic for
> > padding out to the physical sector size, but treat the padding out as
> > optional rather than mandatory.
> >
> > The corresponding block trace with these patches is:
> >
> >     8,32   1        2     0.000003410   694  D  WS 2064 + 8 [kworker/1:1H]
> >     8,32   1        5     0.001368788   694  D  WS 2056 + 8 [kworker/1:1H]
> >     8,32   1        8     0.002727981   694  D  WS 2080 + 8 [kworker/1:1H]
> >     8,32   1       11     0.003533831  3063  D  WS 11721043920 + 8 [md127_raid1]
> >     8,32   1       14     0.253952321   694  D  WS 2064 + 8 [kworker/1:1H]
> >     8,32   1       17     0.255354215   694  D  WS 2056 + 8 [kworker/1:1H]
> >     8,32   1       20     5.337938486   694  D  WS 2064 + 8 [kworker/1:1H]
> >     8,32   1       23    15.577963062   694  D  WS 2080 + 8 [kworker/1:1H]
> >
> > I do notice that the code for bitmap writes has a more sophisticated
> > and thorough check for overlap than the code for superblock writes.
> > (Compare write_sb_page in md-bitmap.c vs. super_1_load in md.c.) From
> > what I know since the various structures starts have always been 4k
> > aligned anyway, it is always safe to pad the superblock write out to
> > 4k (as occurs on 4k native drives) but not necessarily futher.
> >
> > Feedback appreciated.
> >
> >    --Chris
> >
> >
> > Christopher Unkel (3):
> >    md: align superblock writes to physical blocks
> >    md: factor sb write alignment check into function
> >    md: pad writes to end of bitmap to physical blocks
> >
> >   drivers/md/md-bitmap.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> >   drivers/md/md.c        | 15 ++++++++
> >   2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists