Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* CDDL HEADER START
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* This file and its contents are supplied under the terms of the
|
|
|
|
|
* Common Development and Distribution License ("CDDL"), version 1.0.
|
|
|
|
|
* You may only use this file in accordance with the terms of version
|
|
|
|
|
* 1.0 of the CDDL.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* A full copy of the text of the CDDL should have accompanied this
|
|
|
|
|
* source. A copy of the CDDL is also available via the Internet at
|
|
|
|
|
* http://www.illumos.org/license/CDDL.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* CDDL HEADER END
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (c) 2019 by Delphix. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifndef _BTREE_H
|
|
|
|
|
#define _BTREE_H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifdef __cplusplus
|
|
|
|
|
extern "C" {
|
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <sys/zfs_context.h>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* This file defines the interface for a B-Tree implementation for ZFS. The
|
|
|
|
|
* tree can be used to store arbitrary sortable data types with low overhead
|
|
|
|
|
* and good operation performance. In addition the tree intelligently
|
|
|
|
|
* optimizes bulk in-order insertions to improve memory use and performance.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Note that for all B-Tree functions, the values returned are pointers to the
|
|
|
|
|
* internal copies of the data in the tree. The internal data can only be
|
|
|
|
|
* safely mutated if the changes cannot change the ordering of the element
|
|
|
|
|
* with respect to any other elements in the tree.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The major drawback of the B-Tree is that any returned elements or indexes
|
|
|
|
|
* are only valid until a side-effectful operation occurs, since these can
|
|
|
|
|
* result in reallocation or relocation of data. Side effectful operations are
|
|
|
|
|
* defined as insertion, removal, and zfs_btree_destroy_nodes.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The B-Tree has two types of nodes: core nodes, and leaf nodes. Core
|
|
|
|
|
* nodes have an array of children pointing to other nodes, and an array of
|
|
|
|
|
* elements that act as separators between the elements of the subtrees rooted
|
|
|
|
|
* at its children. Leaf nodes only contain data elements, and form the bottom
|
|
|
|
|
* layer of the tree. Unlike B+ Trees, in this B-Tree implementation the
|
|
|
|
|
* elements in the core nodes are not copies of or references to leaf node
|
2020-06-10 07:24:09 +03:00
|
|
|
* elements. Each element occurs only once in the tree, no matter what kind
|
Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
* of node it is in.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The tree's height is the same throughout, unlike many other forms of search
|
|
|
|
|
* tree. Each node (except for the root) must be between half minus one and
|
|
|
|
|
* completely full of elements (and children) at all times. Any operation that
|
|
|
|
|
* would put the node outside of that range results in a rebalancing operation
|
|
|
|
|
* (taking, merging, or splitting).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* This tree was implemented using descriptions from Wikipedia's articles on
|
|
|
|
|
* B-Trees and B+ Trees.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Decreasing these values results in smaller memmove operations, but more of
|
|
|
|
|
* them, and increased memory overhead. Increasing these values results in
|
|
|
|
|
* higher variance in operation time, and reduces memory overhead.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
#define BTREE_CORE_ELEMS 128
|
|
|
|
|
#define BTREE_LEAF_SIZE 4096
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
extern kmem_cache_t *zfs_btree_leaf_cache;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
typedef struct zfs_btree_hdr {
|
|
|
|
|
struct zfs_btree_core *bth_parent;
|
|
|
|
|
boolean_t bth_core;
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* For both leaf and core nodes, represents the number of elements in
|
|
|
|
|
* the node. For core nodes, they will have bth_count + 1 children.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
uint32_t bth_count;
|
|
|
|
|
} zfs_btree_hdr_t;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
typedef struct zfs_btree_core {
|
|
|
|
|
zfs_btree_hdr_t btc_hdr;
|
|
|
|
|
zfs_btree_hdr_t *btc_children[BTREE_CORE_ELEMS + 1];
|
|
|
|
|
uint8_t btc_elems[];
|
|
|
|
|
} zfs_btree_core_t;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
typedef struct zfs_btree_leaf {
|
|
|
|
|
zfs_btree_hdr_t btl_hdr;
|
|
|
|
|
uint8_t btl_elems[];
|
|
|
|
|
} zfs_btree_leaf_t;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
typedef struct zfs_btree_index {
|
|
|
|
|
zfs_btree_hdr_t *bti_node;
|
|
|
|
|
uint64_t bti_offset;
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* True if the location is before the list offset, false if it's at
|
|
|
|
|
* the listed offset.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
boolean_t bti_before;
|
|
|
|
|
} zfs_btree_index_t;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
typedef struct btree {
|
|
|
|
|
zfs_btree_hdr_t *bt_root;
|
|
|
|
|
int64_t bt_height;
|
|
|
|
|
size_t bt_elem_size;
|
|
|
|
|
uint64_t bt_num_elems;
|
|
|
|
|
uint64_t bt_num_nodes;
|
|
|
|
|
zfs_btree_leaf_t *bt_bulk; // non-null if bulk loading
|
|
|
|
|
int (*bt_compar) (const void *, const void *);
|
|
|
|
|
} zfs_btree_t;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Allocate and deallocate caches for btree nodes.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_init(void);
|
|
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_fini(void);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Initialize an B-Tree. Arguments are:
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* tree - the tree to be initialized
|
|
|
|
|
* compar - function to compare two nodes, it must return exactly: -1, 0, or +1
|
|
|
|
|
* -1 for <, 0 for ==, and +1 for >
|
|
|
|
|
* size - the value of sizeof(struct my_type)
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_create(zfs_btree_t *, int (*) (const void *, const void *),
|
|
|
|
|
size_t);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Find a node with a matching value in the tree. Returns the matching node
|
|
|
|
|
* found. If not found, it returns NULL and then if "where" is not NULL it sets
|
2019-10-11 20:13:21 +03:00
|
|
|
* "where" for use with zfs_btree_add_idx() or zfs_btree_nearest().
|
Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* node - node that has the value being looked for
|
2019-10-11 20:13:21 +03:00
|
|
|
* where - position for use with zfs_btree_nearest() or zfs_btree_add_idx(),
|
Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
* may be NULL
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void *zfs_btree_find(zfs_btree_t *, const void *, zfs_btree_index_t *);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Insert a node into the tree.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* node - the node to insert
|
|
|
|
|
* where - position as returned from zfs_btree_find()
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2019-10-11 20:13:21 +03:00
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_add_idx(zfs_btree_t *, const void *, const zfs_btree_index_t *);
|
Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
2019-10-11 20:13:21 +03:00
|
|
|
* Return the first or last valued node in the tree. Will return NULL if the
|
|
|
|
|
* tree is empty. The index can be NULL if the location of the first or last
|
|
|
|
|
* element isn't required.
|
Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void *zfs_btree_first(zfs_btree_t *, zfs_btree_index_t *);
|
|
|
|
|
void *zfs_btree_last(zfs_btree_t *, zfs_btree_index_t *);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
2019-10-11 20:13:21 +03:00
|
|
|
* Return the next or previous valued node in the tree. The second index can
|
|
|
|
|
* safely be NULL, if the location of the next or previous value isn't
|
|
|
|
|
* required.
|
Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void *zfs_btree_next(zfs_btree_t *, const zfs_btree_index_t *,
|
|
|
|
|
zfs_btree_index_t *);
|
|
|
|
|
void *zfs_btree_prev(zfs_btree_t *, const zfs_btree_index_t *,
|
|
|
|
|
zfs_btree_index_t *);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Get a value from a tree and an index.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void *zfs_btree_get(zfs_btree_t *, zfs_btree_index_t *);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Add a single value to the tree. The value must not compare equal to any
|
2019-10-11 20:13:21 +03:00
|
|
|
* other node already in the tree. Note that the value will be copied out, not
|
|
|
|
|
* inserted directly. It is safe to free or destroy the value once this
|
|
|
|
|
* function returns.
|
Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_add(zfs_btree_t *, const void *);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Remove a single value from the tree. The value must be in the tree. The
|
|
|
|
|
* pointer passed in may be a pointer into a tree-controlled buffer, but it
|
|
|
|
|
* need not be.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_remove(zfs_btree_t *, const void *);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Remove the value at the given location from the tree.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2019-10-11 20:13:21 +03:00
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_remove_idx(zfs_btree_t *, zfs_btree_index_t *);
|
Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to
store range trees more efficiently.
The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some
small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core
nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements
in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The
difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an
array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may
be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full
(in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be
less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to
remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data
elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied
into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that
the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead,
but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that
pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation
occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is
usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node
overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference.
The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a
comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes.
The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today.
Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers
of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in
both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64
bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4
byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted
and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and
the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24
bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is
for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes,
like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory).
We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching
range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a
fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors,
we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of
the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte
sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default
settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle
metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not
anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be
almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their
ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges
to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees,
which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not
store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it
is only used for sorted scrub.
We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways
to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual
operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than
they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation,
while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever
changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use
approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos.
Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing
what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily
fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always
find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it
will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger
regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly,
and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor
in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to
below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further
reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs.
The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory
usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't
find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an
oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do
have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk
would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a
loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will
follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the
remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent
allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in
fragmentation as a result of this change.
If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still
has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree
and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation
occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly
fragmented pools.
There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees,
but nothing major.
Reviewed-by: George Wilson <gwilson@delphix.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Ahrens <matt@delphix.com>
Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy seb@delphix.com
Reviewed-by: Igor Kozhukhov <igor@dilos.org>
Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Paul Dagnelie <pcd@delphix.com>
Closes #9181
2019-10-09 20:36:03 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Return the number of nodes in the tree
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
ulong_t zfs_btree_numnodes(zfs_btree_t *);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Used to destroy any remaining nodes in a tree. The cookie argument should
|
|
|
|
|
* be initialized to NULL before the first call. Returns a node that has been
|
|
|
|
|
* removed from the tree and may be free()'d. Returns NULL when the tree is
|
|
|
|
|
* empty.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Once you call zfs_btree_destroy_nodes(), you can only continuing calling it
|
|
|
|
|
* and finally zfs_btree_destroy(). No other B-Tree routines will be valid.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* cookie - an index used to save state between calls to
|
|
|
|
|
* zfs_btree_destroy_nodes()
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* EXAMPLE:
|
|
|
|
|
* zfs_btree_t *tree;
|
|
|
|
|
* struct my_data *node;
|
|
|
|
|
* zfs_btree_index_t *cookie;
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* cookie = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
* while ((node = zfs_btree_destroy_nodes(tree, &cookie)) != NULL)
|
|
|
|
|
* data_destroy(node);
|
|
|
|
|
* zfs_btree_destroy(tree);
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void *zfs_btree_destroy_nodes(zfs_btree_t *, zfs_btree_index_t **);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Destroys all nodes in the tree quickly. This doesn't give the caller an
|
|
|
|
|
* opportunity to iterate over each node and do its own cleanup; for that, use
|
|
|
|
|
* zfs_btree_destroy_nodes().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_clear(zfs_btree_t *);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Final destroy of an B-Tree. Arguments are:
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* tree - the empty tree to destroy
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_destroy(zfs_btree_t *tree);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Runs a variety of self-checks on the btree to verify integrity. */
|
|
|
|
|
void zfs_btree_verify(zfs_btree_t *tree);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#ifdef __cplusplus
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#endif /* _BTREE_H */
|