mirror_zfs/module/os/linux/zfs/zvol_os.c

1128 lines
29 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*
* CDDL HEADER START
*
* The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
* Common Development and Distribution License (the "License").
* You may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
*
* You can obtain a copy of the license at usr/src/OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE
* or http://www.opensolaris.org/os/licensing.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions
* and limitations under the License.
*
* When distributing Covered Code, include this CDDL HEADER in each
* file and include the License file at usr/src/OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE.
* If applicable, add the following below this CDDL HEADER, with the
* fields enclosed by brackets "[]" replaced with your own identifying
* information: Portions Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
*
* CDDL HEADER END
*/
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
/*
* Copyright (c) 2012, 2020 by Delphix. All rights reserved.
*/
#include <sys/dataset_kstats.h>
#include <sys/dbuf.h>
#include <sys/dmu_traverse.h>
#include <sys/dsl_dataset.h>
#include <sys/dsl_prop.h>
#include <sys/dsl_dir.h>
#include <sys/zap.h>
#include <sys/zfeature.h>
#include <sys/zil_impl.h>
#include <sys/dmu_tx.h>
#include <sys/zio.h>
#include <sys/zfs_rlock.h>
#include <sys/spa_impl.h>
#include <sys/zvol.h>
#include <sys/zvol_impl.h>
#include <linux/blkdev_compat.h>
#include <linux/task_io_accounting_ops.h>
unsigned int zvol_major = ZVOL_MAJOR;
unsigned int zvol_request_sync = 0;
unsigned int zvol_prefetch_bytes = (128 * 1024);
unsigned long zvol_max_discard_blocks = 16384;
unsigned int zvol_threads = 32;
struct zvol_state_os {
struct gendisk *zvo_disk; /* generic disk */
struct request_queue *zvo_queue; /* request queue */
dev_t zvo_dev; /* device id */
};
taskq_t *zvol_taskq;
static struct ida zvol_ida;
typedef struct zv_request {
zvol_state_t *zv;
struct bio *bio;
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
taskq_ent_t ent;
} zv_request_t;
/*
* Given a path, return TRUE if path is a ZVOL.
*/
static boolean_t
zvol_is_zvol_impl(const char *device)
{
struct block_device *bdev;
unsigned int major;
bdev = vdev_lookup_bdev(device);
if (IS_ERR(bdev))
return (B_FALSE);
major = MAJOR(bdev->bd_dev);
bdput(bdev);
if (major == zvol_major)
return (B_TRUE);
return (B_FALSE);
}
static void
zvol_write(void *arg)
{
zv_request_t *zvr = arg;
struct bio *bio = zvr->bio;
Linux 5.10 compat: use iov_iter in uio structure As of the 5.10 kernel the generic splice compatibility code has been removed. All filesystems are now responsible for registering a ->splice_read and ->splice_write callback to support this operation. The good news is the VFS provided generic_file_splice_read() and iter_file_splice_write() callbacks can be used provided the ->iter_read and ->iter_write callback support pipes. However, this is currently not the case and only iovecs and bvecs (not pipes) are ever attached to the uio structure. This commit changes that by allowing full iov_iter structures to be attached to uios. Ever since the 4.9 kernel the iov_iter structure has supported iovecs, kvecs, bvevs, and pipes so it's desirable to pass the entire thing when possible. In conjunction with this the uio helper functions (i.e uiomove(), uiocopy(), etc) have been updated to understand the new UIO_ITER type. Note that using the kernel provided uio_iter interfaces allowed the existing Linux specific uio handling code to be simplified. When there's no longer a need to support kernel's older than 4.9, then it will be possible to remove the iovec and bvec members from the uio structure and always use a uio_iter. Until then we need to maintain all of the existing types for older kernels. Some additional refactoring and cleanup was included in this change: - Added checks to configure to detect available iov_iter interfaces. Some are available all the way back to the 3.10 kernel and are used when available. In particular, uio_prefaultpages() now always uses iov_iter_fault_in_readable() which is available for all supported kernels. - The unused UIO_USERISPACE type has been removed. It is no longer needed now that the uio_seg enum is platform specific. - Moved zfs_uio.c from the zcommon.ko module to the Linux specific platform code for the zfs.ko module. This gets it out of libzfs where it was never needed and keeps this Linux specific code out of the common sources. - Removed unnecessary O_APPEND handling from zfs_iter_write(), this is redundant and O_APPEND is already handled in zfs_write(); NOTE: Cleanly applying this kernel compatibility change required applying the following commits. This makes the change larger than it absolutely needs to be, but the resulting code matches what's in the branch branch. This is both more tested and makes it easier to apply any future backports in this area. 7cf4cd824 Remove incorrect assertion 783be694f Reduce confusion in zfs_write af5626ac2 Return EFAULT at the end of zfs_write() when set cc1f85be8 Simplify offset and length limit in zfs_write 9585538d0 Const some unchanging variables in zfs_write 86e74dc16 Remove redundant oid parameter to update_pages b3d723fb0 Factor uid, gid, and projid out of loop in zfs_write 3d40b6554 Share zfs_fsync, zfs_read, zfs_write, et al between Linux and FreeBSD Reviewed-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> Reviewed-by: Tony Hutter <hutter2@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Closes #11351
2020-12-18 19:48:26 +03:00
int error = 0;
uio_t uio;
uio_bvec_init(&uio, bio);
zvol_state_t *zv = zvr->zv;
ASSERT3P(zv, !=, NULL);
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
ASSERT3P(zv->zv_zilog, !=, NULL);
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
/* bio marked as FLUSH need to flush before write */
if (bio_is_flush(bio))
zil_commit(zv->zv_zilog, ZVOL_OBJ);
/* Some requests are just for flush and nothing else. */
if (uio.uio_resid == 0) {
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
BIO_END_IO(bio, 0);
kmem_free(zvr, sizeof (zv_request_t));
return;
}
ssize_t start_resid = uio.uio_resid;
unsigned long start_jif = jiffies;
blk_generic_start_io_acct(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue, WRITE,
bio_sectors(bio), &zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->part0);
boolean_t sync =
bio_is_fua(bio) || zv->zv_objset->os_sync == ZFS_SYNC_ALWAYS;
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
zfs_locked_range_t *lr = zfs_rangelock_enter(&zv->zv_rangelock,
uio.uio_loffset, uio.uio_resid, RL_WRITER);
uint64_t volsize = zv->zv_volsize;
while (uio.uio_resid > 0 && uio.uio_loffset < volsize) {
uint64_t bytes = MIN(uio.uio_resid, DMU_MAX_ACCESS >> 1);
uint64_t off = uio.uio_loffset;
dmu_tx_t *tx = dmu_tx_create(zv->zv_objset);
if (bytes > volsize - off) /* don't write past the end */
bytes = volsize - off;
dmu_tx_hold_write_by_dnode(tx, zv->zv_dn, off, bytes);
/* This will only fail for ENOSPC */
error = dmu_tx_assign(tx, TXG_WAIT);
if (error) {
dmu_tx_abort(tx);
break;
}
error = dmu_write_uio_dnode(zv->zv_dn, &uio, bytes, tx);
if (error == 0) {
zvol_log_write(zv, tx, off, bytes, sync);
}
dmu_tx_commit(tx);
if (error)
break;
}
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
zfs_rangelock_exit(lr);
int64_t nwritten = start_resid - uio.uio_resid;
dataset_kstats_update_write_kstats(&zv->zv_kstat, nwritten);
task_io_account_write(nwritten);
if (sync)
zil_commit(zv->zv_zilog, ZVOL_OBJ);
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
blk_generic_end_io_acct(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
WRITE, &zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->part0, start_jif);
BIO_END_IO(bio, -error);
kmem_free(zvr, sizeof (zv_request_t));
}
static void
zvol_discard(void *arg)
{
zv_request_t *zvr = arg;
struct bio *bio = zvr->bio;
zvol_state_t *zv = zvr->zv;
uint64_t start = BIO_BI_SECTOR(bio) << 9;
uint64_t size = BIO_BI_SIZE(bio);
uint64_t end = start + size;
boolean_t sync;
int error = 0;
dmu_tx_t *tx;
unsigned long start_jif;
ASSERT3P(zv, !=, NULL);
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
ASSERT3P(zv->zv_zilog, !=, NULL);
start_jif = jiffies;
blk_generic_start_io_acct(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue, WRITE,
bio_sectors(bio), &zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->part0);
sync = bio_is_fua(bio) || zv->zv_objset->os_sync == ZFS_SYNC_ALWAYS;
if (end > zv->zv_volsize) {
error = SET_ERROR(EIO);
goto unlock;
}
/*
* Align the request to volume block boundaries when a secure erase is
* not required. This will prevent dnode_free_range() from zeroing out
* the unaligned parts which is slow (read-modify-write) and useless
* since we are not freeing any space by doing so.
*/
if (!bio_is_secure_erase(bio)) {
start = P2ROUNDUP(start, zv->zv_volblocksize);
end = P2ALIGN(end, zv->zv_volblocksize);
size = end - start;
}
if (start >= end)
goto unlock;
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
zfs_locked_range_t *lr = zfs_rangelock_enter(&zv->zv_rangelock,
start, size, RL_WRITER);
tx = dmu_tx_create(zv->zv_objset);
dmu_tx_mark_netfree(tx);
error = dmu_tx_assign(tx, TXG_WAIT);
if (error != 0) {
dmu_tx_abort(tx);
} else {
zvol_log_truncate(zv, tx, start, size, B_TRUE);
dmu_tx_commit(tx);
error = dmu_free_long_range(zv->zv_objset,
ZVOL_OBJ, start, size);
}
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
zfs_rangelock_exit(lr);
if (error == 0 && sync)
zil_commit(zv->zv_zilog, ZVOL_OBJ);
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
unlock:
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
blk_generic_end_io_acct(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue, WRITE,
&zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->part0, start_jif);
BIO_END_IO(bio, -error);
kmem_free(zvr, sizeof (zv_request_t));
}
static void
zvol_read(void *arg)
{
zv_request_t *zvr = arg;
struct bio *bio = zvr->bio;
Linux 5.10 compat: use iov_iter in uio structure As of the 5.10 kernel the generic splice compatibility code has been removed. All filesystems are now responsible for registering a ->splice_read and ->splice_write callback to support this operation. The good news is the VFS provided generic_file_splice_read() and iter_file_splice_write() callbacks can be used provided the ->iter_read and ->iter_write callback support pipes. However, this is currently not the case and only iovecs and bvecs (not pipes) are ever attached to the uio structure. This commit changes that by allowing full iov_iter structures to be attached to uios. Ever since the 4.9 kernel the iov_iter structure has supported iovecs, kvecs, bvevs, and pipes so it's desirable to pass the entire thing when possible. In conjunction with this the uio helper functions (i.e uiomove(), uiocopy(), etc) have been updated to understand the new UIO_ITER type. Note that using the kernel provided uio_iter interfaces allowed the existing Linux specific uio handling code to be simplified. When there's no longer a need to support kernel's older than 4.9, then it will be possible to remove the iovec and bvec members from the uio structure and always use a uio_iter. Until then we need to maintain all of the existing types for older kernels. Some additional refactoring and cleanup was included in this change: - Added checks to configure to detect available iov_iter interfaces. Some are available all the way back to the 3.10 kernel and are used when available. In particular, uio_prefaultpages() now always uses iov_iter_fault_in_readable() which is available for all supported kernels. - The unused UIO_USERISPACE type has been removed. It is no longer needed now that the uio_seg enum is platform specific. - Moved zfs_uio.c from the zcommon.ko module to the Linux specific platform code for the zfs.ko module. This gets it out of libzfs where it was never needed and keeps this Linux specific code out of the common sources. - Removed unnecessary O_APPEND handling from zfs_iter_write(), this is redundant and O_APPEND is already handled in zfs_write(); NOTE: Cleanly applying this kernel compatibility change required applying the following commits. This makes the change larger than it absolutely needs to be, but the resulting code matches what's in the branch branch. This is both more tested and makes it easier to apply any future backports in this area. 7cf4cd824 Remove incorrect assertion 783be694f Reduce confusion in zfs_write af5626ac2 Return EFAULT at the end of zfs_write() when set cc1f85be8 Simplify offset and length limit in zfs_write 9585538d0 Const some unchanging variables in zfs_write 86e74dc16 Remove redundant oid parameter to update_pages b3d723fb0 Factor uid, gid, and projid out of loop in zfs_write 3d40b6554 Share zfs_fsync, zfs_read, zfs_write, et al between Linux and FreeBSD Reviewed-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> Reviewed-by: Tony Hutter <hutter2@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Closes #11351
2020-12-18 19:48:26 +03:00
int error = 0;
uio_t uio;
uio_bvec_init(&uio, bio);
zvol_state_t *zv = zvr->zv;
ASSERT3P(zv, !=, NULL);
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
ssize_t start_resid = uio.uio_resid;
unsigned long start_jif = jiffies;
blk_generic_start_io_acct(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue, READ, bio_sectors(bio),
&zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->part0);
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
zfs_locked_range_t *lr = zfs_rangelock_enter(&zv->zv_rangelock,
uio.uio_loffset, uio.uio_resid, RL_READER);
uint64_t volsize = zv->zv_volsize;
while (uio.uio_resid > 0 && uio.uio_loffset < volsize) {
uint64_t bytes = MIN(uio.uio_resid, DMU_MAX_ACCESS >> 1);
/* don't read past the end */
if (bytes > volsize - uio.uio_loffset)
bytes = volsize - uio.uio_loffset;
error = dmu_read_uio_dnode(zv->zv_dn, &uio, bytes);
if (error) {
/* convert checksum errors into IO errors */
if (error == ECKSUM)
error = SET_ERROR(EIO);
break;
}
}
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
zfs_rangelock_exit(lr);
int64_t nread = start_resid - uio.uio_resid;
dataset_kstats_update_read_kstats(&zv->zv_kstat, nread);
task_io_account_read(nread);
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
blk_generic_end_io_acct(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue, READ,
&zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->part0, start_jif);
BIO_END_IO(bio, -error);
kmem_free(zvr, sizeof (zv_request_t));
}
#ifdef HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS
static blk_qc_t
zvol_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
#else
static MAKE_REQUEST_FN_RET
zvol_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
#endif
{
#ifdef HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS
struct request_queue *q = bio->bi_disk->queue;
#endif
zvol_state_t *zv = q->queuedata;
fstrans_cookie_t cookie = spl_fstrans_mark();
uint64_t offset = BIO_BI_SECTOR(bio) << 9;
uint64_t size = BIO_BI_SIZE(bio);
int rw = bio_data_dir(bio);
zv_request_t *zvr;
if (bio_has_data(bio) && offset + size > zv->zv_volsize) {
printk(KERN_INFO
"%s: bad access: offset=%llu, size=%lu\n",
zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->disk_name,
(long long unsigned)offset,
(long unsigned)size);
BIO_END_IO(bio, -SET_ERROR(EIO));
goto out;
}
if (rw == WRITE) {
if (unlikely(zv->zv_flags & ZVOL_RDONLY)) {
BIO_END_IO(bio, -SET_ERROR(EROFS));
goto out;
}
/*
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
* Prevents the zvol from being suspended, or the ZIL being
* concurrently opened. Will be released after the i/o
* completes.
*/
rw_enter(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, RW_READER);
/*
* Open a ZIL if this is the first time we have written to this
* zvol. We protect zv->zv_zilog with zv_suspend_lock rather
* than zv_state_lock so that we don't need to acquire an
* additional lock in this path.
*/
if (zv->zv_zilog == NULL) {
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
rw_enter(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, RW_WRITER);
if (zv->zv_zilog == NULL) {
zv->zv_zilog = zil_open(zv->zv_objset,
zvol_get_data);
zv->zv_flags |= ZVOL_WRITTEN_TO;
}
rw_downgrade(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
}
zvr = kmem_alloc(sizeof (zv_request_t), KM_SLEEP);
zvr->zv = zv;
zvr->bio = bio;
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
taskq_init_ent(&zvr->ent);
/*
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
* We don't want this thread to be blocked waiting for i/o to
* complete, so we instead wait from a taskq callback. The
* i/o may be a ZIL write (via zil_commit()), or a read of an
* indirect block, or a read of a data block (if this is a
* partial-block write). We will indicate that the i/o is
* complete by calling BIO_END_IO() from the taskq callback.
*
* This design allows the calling thread to continue and
* initiate more concurrent operations by calling
* zvol_request() again. There are typically only a small
* number of threads available to call zvol_request() (e.g.
* one per iSCSI target), so keeping the latency of
* zvol_request() low is important for performance.
*
* The zvol_request_sync module parameter allows this
* behavior to be altered, for performance evaluation
* purposes. If the callback blocks, setting
* zvol_request_sync=1 will result in much worse performance.
*
* We can have up to zvol_threads concurrent i/o's being
* processed for all zvols on the system. This is typically
* a vast improvement over the zvol_request_sync=1 behavior
* of one i/o at a time per zvol. However, an even better
* design would be for zvol_request() to initiate the zio
* directly, and then be notified by the zio_done callback,
* which would call BIO_END_IO(). Unfortunately, the DMU/ZIL
* interfaces lack this functionality (they block waiting for
* the i/o to complete).
*/
if (bio_is_discard(bio) || bio_is_secure_erase(bio)) {
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
if (zvol_request_sync) {
zvol_discard(zvr);
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
} else {
taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq,
zvol_discard, zvr, 0, &zvr->ent);
}
} else {
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
if (zvol_request_sync) {
zvol_write(zvr);
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
} else {
taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq,
zvol_write, zvr, 0, &zvr->ent);
}
}
} else {
/*
* The SCST driver, and possibly others, may issue READ I/Os
* with a length of zero bytes. These empty I/Os contain no
* data and require no additional handling.
*/
if (size == 0) {
BIO_END_IO(bio, 0);
goto out;
}
zvr = kmem_alloc(sizeof (zv_request_t), KM_SLEEP);
zvr->zv = zv;
zvr->bio = bio;
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
taskq_init_ent(&zvr->ent);
rw_enter(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, RW_READER);
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
/* See comment in WRITE case above. */
if (zvol_request_sync) {
zvol_read(zvr);
Improve ZVOL sync write performance by using a taskq == Summary == Prior to this change, sync writes to a zvol are processed serially. This commit makes zvols process concurrently outstanding sync writes in parallel, similar to how reads and async writes are already handled. The result is that the throughput of sync writes is tripled. == Background == When a write comes in for a zvol (e.g. over iscsi), it is processed by calling `zvol_request()` to initiate the operation. ZFS is expected to later call `BIO_END_IO()` when the operation completes (possibly from a different thread). There are a limited number of threads that are available to call `zvol_request()` - one one per iscsi client (unless using MC/S). Therefore, to ensure good performance, the latency of `zvol_request()` is important, so that many i/o operations to the zvol can be processed concurrently. In other words, if the client has multiple outstanding requests to the zvol, the zvol should have multiple outstanding requests to the storage hardware (i.e. issue multiple concurrent `zio_t`'s). For reads, and async writes (i.e. writes which can be acknowledged before the data reaches stable storage), `zvol_request()` achieves low latency by dispatching the bulk of the work (including waiting for i/o to disk) to a taskq. The taskq callback (`zvol_read()` or `zvol_write()`) blocks while waiting for the i/o to disk to complete. The `zvol_taskq` has 32 threads (by default), so we can have up to 32 concurrent i/os to disk in service of requests to zvols. However, for sync writes (i.e. writes which must be persisted to stable storage before they can be acknowledged, by calling `zil_commit()`), `zvol_request()` does not use `zvol_taskq`. Instead it blocks while waiting for the ZIL write to disk to complete. This has the effect of serializing sync writes to each zvol. In other words, each zvol will only process one sync write at a time, waiting for it to be written to the ZIL before accepting the next request. The same issue applies to FLUSH operations, for which `zvol_request()` calls `zil_commit()` directly. == Description of change == This commit changes `zvol_request()` to use `taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq)` for sync writes, and FLUSh operations. Therefore we can have up to 32 threads (the taskq threads) simultaneously calling `zil_commit()`, for a theoretical performance improvement of up to 32x. To avoid the locking issue described in the comment (which this commit removes), we acquire the rangelock from the taskq callback (e.g. `zvol_write()`) rather than from `zvol_request()`. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. This means that multiple simultaneously-outstanding i/o's which access the same block can complete in any order. This was previously thought to be incorrect, but a review of the block device interface requirements revealed that this is fine - the order is inherently not defined. The shorter hold time of the rangelock should also have a slight performance improvement. For an additional slight performance improvement, we use `taskq_dispatch_ent()` instead of `taskq_dispatch()`, which avoids a `kmem_alloc()` and eliminates a failure mode. This applies to all writes (sync and async), reads, and discard operations. == Performance results == We used a zvol as an iscsi target (server) for a Windows initiator (client), with a single connection (the default - i.e. not MC/S). We used `diskspd` to generate a workload with 4 threads, doing 1MB writes to random offsets in the zvol. Without this change we get 231MB/s, and with the change we get 728MB/s, which is 3.15x the original performance. We ran a real-world workload, restoring a MSSQL database, and saw throughput 2.5x the original. We saw more modest performance wins (typically 1.5x-2x) when using MC/S with 4 connections, and with different number of client threads (1, 8, 32). Reviewed-by: Tony Nguyen <tony.nguyen@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Pavel Zakharov <pavel.zakharov@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Closes #10163
2020-03-31 20:50:44 +03:00
} else {
taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq,
zvol_read, zvr, 0, &zvr->ent);
}
}
out:
spl_fstrans_unmark(cookie);
#if defined(HAVE_MAKE_REQUEST_FN_RET_QC) || \
defined(HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS)
return (BLK_QC_T_NONE);
#endif
}
static int
zvol_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t flag)
{
zvol_state_t *zv;
int error = 0;
boolean_t drop_suspend = B_TRUE;
rw_enter(&zvol_state_lock, RW_READER);
/*
* Obtain a copy of private_data under the zvol_state_lock to make
* sure that either the result of zvol free code path setting
* bdev->bd_disk->private_data to NULL is observed, or zvol_free()
* is not called on this zv because of the positive zv_open_count.
*/
zv = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
if (zv == NULL) {
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
return (SET_ERROR(-ENXIO));
}
mutex_enter(&zv->zv_state_lock);
/*
* make sure zvol is not suspended during first open
* (hold zv_suspend_lock) and respect proper lock acquisition
* ordering - zv_suspend_lock before zv_state_lock
*/
if (zv->zv_open_count == 0) {
if (!rw_tryenter(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, RW_READER)) {
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
rw_enter(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, RW_READER);
mutex_enter(&zv->zv_state_lock);
/* check to see if zv_suspend_lock is needed */
if (zv->zv_open_count != 0) {
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
drop_suspend = B_FALSE;
}
}
} else {
drop_suspend = B_FALSE;
}
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
ASSERT(MUTEX_HELD(&zv->zv_state_lock));
if (zv->zv_open_count == 0) {
ASSERT(RW_READ_HELD(&zv->zv_suspend_lock));
error = -zvol_first_open(zv, !(flag & FMODE_WRITE));
if (error)
goto out_mutex;
}
if ((flag & FMODE_WRITE) && (zv->zv_flags & ZVOL_RDONLY)) {
error = -EROFS;
goto out_open_count;
}
zv->zv_open_count++;
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
if (drop_suspend)
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
zfs_check_media_change(bdev);
return (0);
out_open_count:
if (zv->zv_open_count == 0)
zvol_last_close(zv);
out_mutex:
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
if (drop_suspend)
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
if (error == -EINTR) {
error = -ERESTARTSYS;
schedule();
}
return (SET_ERROR(error));
}
static void
zvol_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
{
zvol_state_t *zv;
boolean_t drop_suspend = B_TRUE;
rw_enter(&zvol_state_lock, RW_READER);
zv = disk->private_data;
mutex_enter(&zv->zv_state_lock);
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
/*
* make sure zvol is not suspended during last close
* (hold zv_suspend_lock) and respect proper lock acquisition
* ordering - zv_suspend_lock before zv_state_lock
*/
if (zv->zv_open_count == 1) {
if (!rw_tryenter(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, RW_READER)) {
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
rw_enter(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, RW_READER);
mutex_enter(&zv->zv_state_lock);
/* check to see if zv_suspend_lock is needed */
if (zv->zv_open_count != 1) {
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
drop_suspend = B_FALSE;
}
}
} else {
drop_suspend = B_FALSE;
}
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
ASSERT(MUTEX_HELD(&zv->zv_state_lock));
zv->zv_open_count--;
if (zv->zv_open_count == 0) {
ASSERT(RW_READ_HELD(&zv->zv_suspend_lock));
zvol_last_close(zv);
}
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
if (drop_suspend)
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
}
static int
zvol_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
zvol_state_t *zv = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
int error = 0;
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
switch (cmd) {
case BLKFLSBUF:
fsync_bdev(bdev);
invalidate_bdev(bdev);
rw_enter(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, RW_READER);
if (!(zv->zv_flags & ZVOL_RDONLY))
txg_wait_synced(dmu_objset_pool(zv->zv_objset), 0);
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
break;
case BLKZNAME:
mutex_enter(&zv->zv_state_lock);
error = copy_to_user((void *)arg, zv->zv_name, MAXNAMELEN);
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
break;
default:
error = -ENOTTY;
break;
}
return (SET_ERROR(error));
}
#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
static int
zvol_compat_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
unsigned cmd, unsigned long arg)
{
return (zvol_ioctl(bdev, mode, cmd, arg));
}
#else
#define zvol_compat_ioctl NULL
#endif
static unsigned int
zvol_check_events(struct gendisk *disk, unsigned int clearing)
{
unsigned int mask = 0;
rw_enter(&zvol_state_lock, RW_READER);
zvol_state_t *zv = disk->private_data;
if (zv != NULL) {
mutex_enter(&zv->zv_state_lock);
mask = zv->zv_changed ? DISK_EVENT_MEDIA_CHANGE : 0;
zv->zv_changed = 0;
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
}
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
return (mask);
}
static int
zvol_revalidate_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
{
rw_enter(&zvol_state_lock, RW_READER);
zvol_state_t *zv = disk->private_data;
if (zv != NULL) {
mutex_enter(&zv->zv_state_lock);
set_capacity(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk,
zv->zv_volsize >> SECTOR_BITS);
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
}
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
return (0);
}
static int
zvol_update_volsize(zvol_state_t *zv, uint64_t volsize)
{
#ifdef HAVE_REVALIDATE_DISK_SIZE
revalidate_disk_size(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk, false);
#else
revalidate_disk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
#endif
return (0);
}
static void
zvol_clear_private(zvol_state_t *zv)
{
/*
* Cleared while holding zvol_state_lock as a writer
* which will prevent zvol_open() from opening it.
*/
zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->private_data = NULL;
}
/*
* Provide a simple virtual geometry for legacy compatibility. For devices
* smaller than 1 MiB a small head and sector count is used to allow very
* tiny devices. For devices over 1 Mib a standard head and sector count
* is used to keep the cylinders count reasonable.
*/
static int
zvol_getgeo(struct block_device *bdev, struct hd_geometry *geo)
{
zvol_state_t *zv = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
sector_t sectors;
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
sectors = get_capacity(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
if (sectors > 2048) {
geo->heads = 16;
geo->sectors = 63;
} else {
geo->heads = 2;
geo->sectors = 4;
}
geo->start = 0;
geo->cylinders = sectors / (geo->heads * geo->sectors);
return (0);
}
/*
* Find a zvol_state_t given the full major+minor dev_t. If found,
* return with zv_state_lock taken, otherwise, return (NULL) without
* taking zv_state_lock.
*/
static zvol_state_t *
zvol_find_by_dev(dev_t dev)
{
zvol_state_t *zv;
rw_enter(&zvol_state_lock, RW_READER);
for (zv = list_head(&zvol_state_list); zv != NULL;
zv = list_next(&zvol_state_list, zv)) {
mutex_enter(&zv->zv_state_lock);
if (zv->zv_zso->zvo_dev == dev) {
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
return (zv);
}
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
}
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
return (NULL);
}
static struct kobject *
zvol_probe(dev_t dev, int *part, void *arg)
{
zvol_state_t *zv;
struct kobject *kobj;
zv = zvol_find_by_dev(dev);
kobj = zv ? get_disk_and_module(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk) : NULL;
ASSERT(zv == NULL || MUTEX_HELD(&zv->zv_state_lock));
if (zv)
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
return (kobj);
}
static struct block_device_operations zvol_ops = {
.open = zvol_open,
.release = zvol_release,
.ioctl = zvol_ioctl,
.compat_ioctl = zvol_compat_ioctl,
.check_events = zvol_check_events,
.revalidate_disk = zvol_revalidate_disk,
.getgeo = zvol_getgeo,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
#ifdef HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS
.submit_bio = zvol_submit_bio,
#endif
};
/*
* Allocate memory for a new zvol_state_t and setup the required
* request queue and generic disk structures for the block device.
*/
static zvol_state_t *
zvol_alloc(dev_t dev, const char *name)
{
zvol_state_t *zv;
struct zvol_state_os *zso;
uint64_t volmode;
if (dsl_prop_get_integer(name, "volmode", &volmode, NULL) != 0)
return (NULL);
if (volmode == ZFS_VOLMODE_DEFAULT)
volmode = zvol_volmode;
if (volmode == ZFS_VOLMODE_NONE)
return (NULL);
zv = kmem_zalloc(sizeof (zvol_state_t), KM_SLEEP);
zso = kmem_zalloc(sizeof (struct zvol_state_os), KM_SLEEP);
zv->zv_zso = zso;
zv->zv_volmode = volmode;
list_link_init(&zv->zv_next);
mutex_init(&zv->zv_state_lock, NULL, MUTEX_DEFAULT, NULL);
#ifdef HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS
zso->zvo_queue = blk_alloc_queue(NUMA_NO_NODE);
#else
zso->zvo_queue = blk_generic_alloc_queue(zvol_request, NUMA_NO_NODE);
#endif
if (zso->zvo_queue == NULL)
goto out_kmem;
blk_queue_set_write_cache(zso->zvo_queue, B_TRUE, B_TRUE);
/* Limit read-ahead to a single page to prevent over-prefetching. */
blk_queue_set_read_ahead(zso->zvo_queue, 1);
/* Disable write merging in favor of the ZIO pipeline. */
blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_NOMERGES, zso->zvo_queue);
zso->zvo_disk = alloc_disk(ZVOL_MINORS);
if (zso->zvo_disk == NULL)
goto out_queue;
zso->zvo_queue->queuedata = zv;
zso->zvo_dev = dev;
zv->zv_open_count = 0;
strlcpy(zv->zv_name, name, MAXNAMELEN);
zfs_rangelock_init(&zv->zv_rangelock, NULL, NULL);
rw_init(&zv->zv_suspend_lock, NULL, RW_DEFAULT, NULL);
zso->zvo_disk->major = zvol_major;
zso->zvo_disk->events = DISK_EVENT_MEDIA_CHANGE;
if (volmode == ZFS_VOLMODE_DEV) {
/*
* ZFS_VOLMODE_DEV disable partitioning on ZVOL devices: set
* gendisk->minors = 1 as noted in include/linux/genhd.h.
* Also disable extended partition numbers (GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT)
* and suppresses partition scanning (GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN)
* setting gendisk->flags accordingly.
*/
zso->zvo_disk->minors = 1;
#if defined(GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT)
zso->zvo_disk->flags &= ~GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT;
#endif
#if defined(GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN)
zso->zvo_disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
#endif
}
zso->zvo_disk->first_minor = (dev & MINORMASK);
zso->zvo_disk->fops = &zvol_ops;
zso->zvo_disk->private_data = zv;
zso->zvo_disk->queue = zso->zvo_queue;
snprintf(zso->zvo_disk->disk_name, DISK_NAME_LEN, "%s%d",
ZVOL_DEV_NAME, (dev & MINORMASK));
return (zv);
out_queue:
blk_cleanup_queue(zso->zvo_queue);
out_kmem:
kmem_free(zso, sizeof (struct zvol_state_os));
kmem_free(zv, sizeof (zvol_state_t));
return (NULL);
}
/*
* Cleanup then free a zvol_state_t which was created by zvol_alloc().
* At this time, the structure is not opened by anyone, is taken off
* the zvol_state_list, and has its private data set to NULL.
* The zvol_state_lock is dropped.
Timeout waiting for ZVOL device to be created We've seen cases where after creating a ZVOL, the ZVOL device node in "/dev" isn't generated after 20 seconds of waiting, which is the point at which our applications gives up on waiting and reports an error. The workload when this occurs is to "refresh" 400+ ZVOLs roughly at the same time, based on a policy set by the user. This refresh operation will destroy the ZVOL, and re-create it based on a snapshot. When this occurs, we see many hundreds of entries on the "z_zvol" taskq (based on inspection of the /proc/spl/taskq-all file). Many of the entries on the taskq end up in the "zvol_remove_minors_impl" function, and I've measured the latency of that function: Function = zvol_remove_minors_impl msecs : count distribution 0 -> 1 : 0 | | 2 -> 3 : 0 | | 4 -> 7 : 1 | | 8 -> 15 : 0 | | 16 -> 31 : 0 | | 32 -> 63 : 0 | | 64 -> 127 : 1 | | 128 -> 255 : 45 |****************************************| 256 -> 511 : 5 |**** | That data is from a 10 second sample, using the BCC "funclatency" tool. As we can see, in this 10 second sample, most calls took 128ms at a minimum. Thus, some basic math tells us that in any 20 second interval, we could only process at most about 150 removals, which is much less than the 400+ that'll occur based on the workload. As a result of this, and since all ZVOL minor operations will go through the single threaded "z_zvol" taskq, the latency for creating a single ZVOL device can be unreasonably large due to other ZVOL activity on the system. In our case, it's large enough to cause the application to generate an error and fail the operation. When profiling the "zvol_remove_minors_impl" function, I saw that most of the time in the function was spent off-cpu, blocked in the function "taskq_wait_outstanding". How this works, is "zvol_remove_minors_impl" will dispatch calls to "zvol_free" using the "system_taskq", and then the "taskq_wait_outstanding" function is used to wait for all of those dispatched calls to occur before "zvol_remove_minors_impl" will return. As far as I can tell, "zvol_remove_minors_impl" doesn't necessarily have to wait for all calls to "zvol_free" to occur before it returns. Thus, this change removes the call to "taskq_wait_oustanding", so that calls to "zvol_free" don't affect the latency of "zvol_remove_minors_impl". Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Reviewed-by: John Gallagher <john.gallagher@delphix.com> Signed-off-by: Prakash Surya <prakash.surya@delphix.com> Closes #9380
2019-10-01 22:33:12 +03:00
*
* This function may take many milliseconds to complete (e.g. we've seen
* it take over 256ms), due to the calls to "blk_cleanup_queue" and
* "del_gendisk". Thus, consumers need to be careful to account for this
* latency when calling this function.
*/
static void
zvol_free(zvol_state_t *zv)
{
ASSERT(!RW_LOCK_HELD(&zv->zv_suspend_lock));
ASSERT(!MUTEX_HELD(&zv->zv_state_lock));
ASSERT0(zv->zv_open_count);
ASSERT3P(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk->private_data, ==, NULL);
rw_destroy(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
zfs_rangelock_fini(&zv->zv_rangelock);
del_gendisk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
blk_cleanup_queue(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue);
put_disk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
ida_simple_remove(&zvol_ida,
MINOR(zv->zv_zso->zvo_dev) >> ZVOL_MINOR_BITS);
mutex_destroy(&zv->zv_state_lock);
dataset_kstats_destroy(&zv->zv_kstat);
kmem_free(zv->zv_zso, sizeof (struct zvol_state_os));
kmem_free(zv, sizeof (zvol_state_t));
}
void
zvol_wait_close(zvol_state_t *zv)
{
}
/*
* Create a block device minor node and setup the linkage between it
* and the specified volume. Once this function returns the block
* device is live and ready for use.
*/
static int
async zvol minor node creation interferes with receive When we finish a zfs receive, dmu_recv_end_sync() calls zvol_create_minors(async=TRUE). This kicks off some other threads that create the minor device nodes (in /dev/zvol/poolname/...). These async threads call zvol_prefetch_minors_impl() and zvol_create_minor(), which both call dmu_objset_own(), which puts a "long hold" on the dataset. Since the zvol minor node creation is asynchronous, this can happen after the `ZFS_IOC_RECV[_NEW]` ioctl and `zfs receive` process have completed. After the first receive ioctl has completed, userland may attempt to do another receive into the same dataset (e.g. the next incremental stream). This second receive and the asynchronous minor node creation can interfere with one another in several different ways, because they both require exclusive access to the dataset: 1. When the second receive is finishing up, dmu_recv_end_check() does dsl_dataset_handoff_check(), which can fail with EBUSY if the async minor node creation already has a "long hold" on this dataset. This causes the 2nd receive to fail. 2. The async udev rule can fail if zvol_id and/or systemd-udevd try to open the device while the the second receive's async attempt at minor node creation owns the dataset (via zvol_prefetch_minors_impl). This causes the minor node (/dev/zd*) to exist, but the udev-generated /dev/zvol/... to not exist. 3. The async minor node creation can silently fail with EBUSY if the first receive's zvol_create_minor() trys to own the dataset while the second receive's zvol_prefetch_minors_impl already owns the dataset. To address these problems, this change synchronously creates the minor node. To avoid the lock ordering problems that the asynchrony was introduced to fix (see #3681), we create the minor nodes from open context, with no locks held, rather than from syncing contex as was originally done. Implementation notes: We generally do not need to traverse children or prefetch anything (e.g. when running the recv, snapshot, create, or clone subcommands of zfs). We only need recursion when importing/opening a pool and when loading encryption keys. The existing recursive, asynchronous, prefetching code is preserved for use in these cases. Channel programs may need to create zvol minor nodes, when creating a snapshot of a zvol with the snapdev property set. We figure out what snapshots are created when running the LUA program in syncing context. In this case we need to remember what snapshots were created, and then try to create their minor nodes from open context, after the LUA code has completed. There are additional zvol use cases that asynchronously own the dataset, which can cause similar problems. E.g. changing the volmode or snapdev properties. These are less problematic because they are not recursive and don't touch datasets that are not involved in the operation, there is still potential for interference with subsequent operations. In the future, these cases should be similarly converted to create the zvol minor node synchronously from open context. The async tasks of removing and renaming minors do not own the objset, so they do not have this problem. However, it may make sense to also convert these operations to happen synchronously from open context, in the future. Reviewed-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Prakash Surya <prakash.surya@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> External-issue: DLPX-65948 Closes #7863 Closes #9885
2020-02-03 20:33:14 +03:00
zvol_os_create_minor(const char *name)
{
zvol_state_t *zv;
objset_t *os;
dmu_object_info_t *doi;
uint64_t volsize;
uint64_t len;
unsigned minor = 0;
int error = 0;
int idx;
uint64_t hash = zvol_name_hash(name);
if (zvol_inhibit_dev)
return (0);
idx = ida_simple_get(&zvol_ida, 0, 0, kmem_flags_convert(KM_SLEEP));
if (idx < 0)
return (SET_ERROR(-idx));
minor = idx << ZVOL_MINOR_BITS;
zv = zvol_find_by_name_hash(name, hash, RW_NONE);
if (zv) {
ASSERT(MUTEX_HELD(&zv->zv_state_lock));
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
ida_simple_remove(&zvol_ida, idx);
return (SET_ERROR(EEXIST));
}
doi = kmem_alloc(sizeof (dmu_object_info_t), KM_SLEEP);
error = dmu_objset_own(name, DMU_OST_ZVOL, B_TRUE, B_TRUE, FTAG, &os);
if (error)
goto out_doi;
error = dmu_object_info(os, ZVOL_OBJ, doi);
if (error)
goto out_dmu_objset_disown;
error = zap_lookup(os, ZVOL_ZAP_OBJ, "size", 8, 1, &volsize);
if (error)
goto out_dmu_objset_disown;
zv = zvol_alloc(MKDEV(zvol_major, minor), name);
if (zv == NULL) {
error = SET_ERROR(EAGAIN);
goto out_dmu_objset_disown;
}
zv->zv_hash = hash;
if (dmu_objset_is_snapshot(os))
zv->zv_flags |= ZVOL_RDONLY;
zv->zv_volblocksize = doi->doi_data_block_size;
zv->zv_volsize = volsize;
zv->zv_objset = os;
set_capacity(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk, zv->zv_volsize >> 9);
blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
(DMU_MAX_ACCESS / 4) >> 9);
blk_queue_max_segments(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue, UINT16_MAX);
blk_queue_max_segment_size(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue, UINT_MAX);
blk_queue_physical_block_size(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
zv->zv_volblocksize);
blk_queue_io_opt(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue, zv->zv_volblocksize);
blk_queue_max_discard_sectors(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
(zvol_max_discard_blocks * zv->zv_volblocksize) >> 9);
blk_queue_discard_granularity(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
zv->zv_volblocksize);
blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue);
#ifdef QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT
blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT, zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue);
#endif
#ifdef QUEUE_FLAG_ADD_RANDOM
blk_queue_flag_clear(QUEUE_FLAG_ADD_RANDOM, zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue);
#endif
/* This flag was introduced in kernel version 4.12. */
#ifdef QUEUE_FLAG_SCSI_PASSTHROUGH
blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_SCSI_PASSTHROUGH, zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue);
#endif
if (spa_writeable(dmu_objset_spa(os))) {
if (zil_replay_disable)
zil_destroy(dmu_objset_zil(os), B_FALSE);
else
zil_replay(os, zv, zvol_replay_vector);
}
ASSERT3P(zv->zv_kstat.dk_kstats, ==, NULL);
dataset_kstats_create(&zv->zv_kstat, zv->zv_objset);
/*
* When udev detects the addition of the device it will immediately
* invoke blkid(8) to determine the type of content on the device.
* Prefetching the blocks commonly scanned by blkid(8) will speed
* up this process.
*/
len = MIN(MAX(zvol_prefetch_bytes, 0), SPA_MAXBLOCKSIZE);
if (len > 0) {
dmu_prefetch(os, ZVOL_OBJ, 0, 0, len, ZIO_PRIORITY_SYNC_READ);
dmu_prefetch(os, ZVOL_OBJ, 0, volsize - len, len,
ZIO_PRIORITY_SYNC_READ);
}
zv->zv_objset = NULL;
out_dmu_objset_disown:
dmu_objset_disown(os, B_TRUE, FTAG);
out_doi:
kmem_free(doi, sizeof (dmu_object_info_t));
/*
* Keep in mind that once add_disk() is called, the zvol is
* announced to the world, and zvol_open()/zvol_release() can
* be called at any time. Incidentally, add_disk() itself calls
* zvol_open()->zvol_first_open() and zvol_release()->zvol_last_close()
* directly as well.
*/
if (error == 0) {
rw_enter(&zvol_state_lock, RW_WRITER);
zvol_insert(zv);
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
add_disk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
} else {
ida_simple_remove(&zvol_ida, idx);
}
async zvol minor node creation interferes with receive When we finish a zfs receive, dmu_recv_end_sync() calls zvol_create_minors(async=TRUE). This kicks off some other threads that create the minor device nodes (in /dev/zvol/poolname/...). These async threads call zvol_prefetch_minors_impl() and zvol_create_minor(), which both call dmu_objset_own(), which puts a "long hold" on the dataset. Since the zvol minor node creation is asynchronous, this can happen after the `ZFS_IOC_RECV[_NEW]` ioctl and `zfs receive` process have completed. After the first receive ioctl has completed, userland may attempt to do another receive into the same dataset (e.g. the next incremental stream). This second receive and the asynchronous minor node creation can interfere with one another in several different ways, because they both require exclusive access to the dataset: 1. When the second receive is finishing up, dmu_recv_end_check() does dsl_dataset_handoff_check(), which can fail with EBUSY if the async minor node creation already has a "long hold" on this dataset. This causes the 2nd receive to fail. 2. The async udev rule can fail if zvol_id and/or systemd-udevd try to open the device while the the second receive's async attempt at minor node creation owns the dataset (via zvol_prefetch_minors_impl). This causes the minor node (/dev/zd*) to exist, but the udev-generated /dev/zvol/... to not exist. 3. The async minor node creation can silently fail with EBUSY if the first receive's zvol_create_minor() trys to own the dataset while the second receive's zvol_prefetch_minors_impl already owns the dataset. To address these problems, this change synchronously creates the minor node. To avoid the lock ordering problems that the asynchrony was introduced to fix (see #3681), we create the minor nodes from open context, with no locks held, rather than from syncing contex as was originally done. Implementation notes: We generally do not need to traverse children or prefetch anything (e.g. when running the recv, snapshot, create, or clone subcommands of zfs). We only need recursion when importing/opening a pool and when loading encryption keys. The existing recursive, asynchronous, prefetching code is preserved for use in these cases. Channel programs may need to create zvol minor nodes, when creating a snapshot of a zvol with the snapdev property set. We figure out what snapshots are created when running the LUA program in syncing context. In this case we need to remember what snapshots were created, and then try to create their minor nodes from open context, after the LUA code has completed. There are additional zvol use cases that asynchronously own the dataset, which can cause similar problems. E.g. changing the volmode or snapdev properties. These are less problematic because they are not recursive and don't touch datasets that are not involved in the operation, there is still potential for interference with subsequent operations. In the future, these cases should be similarly converted to create the zvol minor node synchronously from open context. The async tasks of removing and renaming minors do not own the objset, so they do not have this problem. However, it may make sense to also convert these operations to happen synchronously from open context, in the future. Reviewed-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Prakash Surya <prakash.surya@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> External-issue: DLPX-65948 Closes #7863 Closes #9885
2020-02-03 20:33:14 +03:00
return (error);
}
static void
zvol_rename_minor(zvol_state_t *zv, const char *newname)
{
int readonly = get_disk_ro(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
ASSERT(RW_LOCK_HELD(&zvol_state_lock));
ASSERT(MUTEX_HELD(&zv->zv_state_lock));
strlcpy(zv->zv_name, newname, sizeof (zv->zv_name));
/* move to new hashtable entry */
zv->zv_hash = zvol_name_hash(zv->zv_name);
hlist_del(&zv->zv_hlink);
hlist_add_head(&zv->zv_hlink, ZVOL_HT_HEAD(zv->zv_hash));
/*
* The block device's read-only state is briefly changed causing
* a KOBJ_CHANGE uevent to be issued. This ensures udev detects
* the name change and fixes the symlinks. This does not change
* ZVOL_RDONLY in zv->zv_flags so the actual read-only state never
* changes. This would normally be done using kobject_uevent() but
* that is a GPL-only symbol which is why we need this workaround.
*/
set_disk_ro(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk, !readonly);
set_disk_ro(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk, readonly);
}
static void
zvol_set_disk_ro_impl(zvol_state_t *zv, int flags)
{
set_disk_ro(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk, flags);
}
static void
zvol_set_capacity_impl(zvol_state_t *zv, uint64_t capacity)
{
set_capacity(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk, capacity);
}
const static zvol_platform_ops_t zvol_linux_ops = {
.zv_free = zvol_free,
.zv_rename_minor = zvol_rename_minor,
async zvol minor node creation interferes with receive When we finish a zfs receive, dmu_recv_end_sync() calls zvol_create_minors(async=TRUE). This kicks off some other threads that create the minor device nodes (in /dev/zvol/poolname/...). These async threads call zvol_prefetch_minors_impl() and zvol_create_minor(), which both call dmu_objset_own(), which puts a "long hold" on the dataset. Since the zvol minor node creation is asynchronous, this can happen after the `ZFS_IOC_RECV[_NEW]` ioctl and `zfs receive` process have completed. After the first receive ioctl has completed, userland may attempt to do another receive into the same dataset (e.g. the next incremental stream). This second receive and the asynchronous minor node creation can interfere with one another in several different ways, because they both require exclusive access to the dataset: 1. When the second receive is finishing up, dmu_recv_end_check() does dsl_dataset_handoff_check(), which can fail with EBUSY if the async minor node creation already has a "long hold" on this dataset. This causes the 2nd receive to fail. 2. The async udev rule can fail if zvol_id and/or systemd-udevd try to open the device while the the second receive's async attempt at minor node creation owns the dataset (via zvol_prefetch_minors_impl). This causes the minor node (/dev/zd*) to exist, but the udev-generated /dev/zvol/... to not exist. 3. The async minor node creation can silently fail with EBUSY if the first receive's zvol_create_minor() trys to own the dataset while the second receive's zvol_prefetch_minors_impl already owns the dataset. To address these problems, this change synchronously creates the minor node. To avoid the lock ordering problems that the asynchrony was introduced to fix (see #3681), we create the minor nodes from open context, with no locks held, rather than from syncing contex as was originally done. Implementation notes: We generally do not need to traverse children or prefetch anything (e.g. when running the recv, snapshot, create, or clone subcommands of zfs). We only need recursion when importing/opening a pool and when loading encryption keys. The existing recursive, asynchronous, prefetching code is preserved for use in these cases. Channel programs may need to create zvol minor nodes, when creating a snapshot of a zvol with the snapdev property set. We figure out what snapshots are created when running the LUA program in syncing context. In this case we need to remember what snapshots were created, and then try to create their minor nodes from open context, after the LUA code has completed. There are additional zvol use cases that asynchronously own the dataset, which can cause similar problems. E.g. changing the volmode or snapdev properties. These are less problematic because they are not recursive and don't touch datasets that are not involved in the operation, there is still potential for interference with subsequent operations. In the future, these cases should be similarly converted to create the zvol minor node synchronously from open context. The async tasks of removing and renaming minors do not own the objset, so they do not have this problem. However, it may make sense to also convert these operations to happen synchronously from open context, in the future. Reviewed-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Prakash Surya <prakash.surya@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> External-issue: DLPX-65948 Closes #7863 Closes #9885
2020-02-03 20:33:14 +03:00
.zv_create_minor = zvol_os_create_minor,
.zv_update_volsize = zvol_update_volsize,
.zv_clear_private = zvol_clear_private,
.zv_is_zvol = zvol_is_zvol_impl,
.zv_set_disk_ro = zvol_set_disk_ro_impl,
.zv_set_capacity = zvol_set_capacity_impl,
};
int
zvol_init(void)
{
int error;
int threads = MIN(MAX(zvol_threads, 1), 1024);
error = register_blkdev(zvol_major, ZVOL_DRIVER);
if (error) {
printk(KERN_INFO "ZFS: register_blkdev() failed %d\n", error);
return (error);
}
zvol_taskq = taskq_create(ZVOL_DRIVER, threads, maxclsyspri,
threads * 2, INT_MAX, TASKQ_PREPOPULATE | TASKQ_DYNAMIC);
if (zvol_taskq == NULL) {
unregister_blkdev(zvol_major, ZVOL_DRIVER);
return (-ENOMEM);
}
zvol_init_impl();
blk_register_region(MKDEV(zvol_major, 0), 1UL << MINORBITS,
THIS_MODULE, zvol_probe, NULL, NULL);
ida_init(&zvol_ida);
zvol_register_ops(&zvol_linux_ops);
return (0);
}
void
zvol_fini(void)
{
zvol_fini_impl();
blk_unregister_region(MKDEV(zvol_major, 0), 1UL << MINORBITS);
unregister_blkdev(zvol_major, ZVOL_DRIVER);
taskq_destroy(zvol_taskq);
ida_destroy(&zvol_ida);
}
/* BEGIN CSTYLED */
module_param(zvol_inhibit_dev, uint, 0644);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_inhibit_dev, "Do not create zvol device nodes");
module_param(zvol_major, uint, 0444);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_major, "Major number for zvol device");
module_param(zvol_threads, uint, 0444);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_threads, "Max number of threads to handle I/O requests");
module_param(zvol_request_sync, uint, 0644);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_request_sync, "Synchronously handle bio requests");
module_param(zvol_max_discard_blocks, ulong, 0444);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_max_discard_blocks, "Max number of blocks to discard");
module_param(zvol_prefetch_bytes, uint, 0644);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_prefetch_bytes, "Prefetch N bytes at zvol start+end");
module_param(zvol_volmode, uint, 0644);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_volmode, "Default volmode property value");
/* END CSTYLED */