dm-multipath low performance with blk-mq

[Mike Snitzer]

On Thu, Feb 04 2016 at  9:32am -0500,
Hannes Reinecke <hare at suse.de> wrote:

> On 02/04/2016 03:09 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 04 2016 at  8:58am -0500,
> > Hannes Reinecke <hare at suse.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 02/04/2016 02:54 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 04 2016 at  1:54am -0500,
> >>> Hannes Reinecke <hare at suse.de> wrote:
> >>>
> >> [ .. ]
> >>>> But anyway, I'll be looking at your patches.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, sadly none of the patches are going to fix the performance
> >>> problems but I do think they are a step forward.
> >>>
> >> Hmm. I've got a slew of patches converting dm-mpath to use atomic_t
> >> and bitops; with that we should be able to move to rcu for path
> >> lookup and do away with most of the locking.
> >> Quite raw, though; drop me a mail if you're interested.
> > 
> > Hmm, ok I just switched m->lock from spinlock_t to rwlock_t, see:
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-4.6&id=a5226e23a6958ac9b7ade13a983604c43d232c7d
> > 
> > So any patch you'd have in this area would need rebasing.  I'll gladly
> > look at what you have (even if it isn't rebased).  So yes please share.
> > 
> > (it could be that there isn't a big enough win associated with switching
> > to rwlock_t -- that we could get away without doing that particular
> > churn.. open to that if you think rwlock_t pointless given we'll take
> > the write lock after repeat_count drops to 0)
> > 
> personally, I don't think the switching to a rwlock_t will buy us
> anything; for a decent performance you have to set rq_min_io to 1
> anyway, thereby defeating the purpose of the rwlock.

OK, I'll drop the rwlock_t commit.
 
> My thinking was rather a different direction:
> Move the crucial bits of the multipath structure to atomics, and
> split off the path selection code into one bit for selecting the
> path within a path group, and another which switches the path groups.
> When we do that we could use rcus for the paths themselves, and
> would only need to take the spinlock if we need to switch path
> groups. Which should be okay as switching path groups is
> (potentially) a rather slow operation anyway.

If you were to put focus to dusting your work off and helping me get
switched over to RCU I'd be very thankful.