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

1617 lines
42 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 https://opensource.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0.
* 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>
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
#include <linux/blk-mq.h>
#endif
static void zvol_request_impl(zvol_state_t *zv, struct bio *bio,
struct request *rq, boolean_t force_sync);
static unsigned int zvol_major = ZVOL_MAJOR;
static unsigned int zvol_request_sync = 0;
static unsigned int zvol_prefetch_bytes = (128 * 1024);
static unsigned long zvol_max_discard_blocks = 16384;
#ifndef HAVE_BLKDEV_GET_ERESTARTSYS
static const unsigned int zvol_open_timeout_ms = 1000;
#endif
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
static unsigned int zvol_threads = 0;
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
static unsigned int zvol_blk_mq_threads = 0;
static unsigned int zvol_blk_mq_actual_threads;
static boolean_t zvol_use_blk_mq = B_FALSE;
/*
* The maximum number of volblocksize blocks to process per thread. Typically,
* write heavy workloads preform better with higher values here, and read
* heavy workloads preform better with lower values, but that's not a hard
* and fast rule. It's basically a knob to tune between "less overhead with
* less parallelism" and "more overhead, but more parallelism".
*
* '8' was chosen as a reasonable, balanced, default based off of sequential
* read and write tests to a zvol in an NVMe pool (with 16 CPUs).
*/
static unsigned int zvol_blk_mq_blocks_per_thread = 8;
#endif
#ifndef BLKDEV_DEFAULT_RQ
/* BLKDEV_MAX_RQ was renamed to BLKDEV_DEFAULT_RQ in the 5.16 kernel */
#define BLKDEV_DEFAULT_RQ BLKDEV_MAX_RQ
#endif
/*
* Finalize our BIO or request.
*/
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
#define END_IO(zv, bio, rq, error) do { \
if (bio) { \
BIO_END_IO(bio, error); \
} else { \
blk_mq_end_request(rq, errno_to_bi_status(error)); \
} \
} while (0)
#else
#define END_IO(zv, bio, rq, error) BIO_END_IO(bio, error)
#endif
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
static unsigned int zvol_blk_mq_queue_depth = BLKDEV_DEFAULT_RQ;
static unsigned int zvol_actual_blk_mq_queue_depth;
#endif
struct zvol_state_os {
struct gendisk *zvo_disk; /* generic disk */
struct request_queue *zvo_queue; /* request queue */
dev_t zvo_dev; /* device id */
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
struct blk_mq_tag_set tag_set;
#endif
/* Set from the global 'zvol_use_blk_mq' at zvol load */
boolean_t use_blk_mq;
};
static taskq_t *zvol_taskq;
static struct ida zvol_ida;
typedef struct zv_request_stack {
zvol_state_t *zv;
struct bio *bio;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
struct request *rq;
} zv_request_t;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
typedef struct zv_work {
struct request *rq;
struct work_struct work;
} zv_work_t;
typedef struct zv_request_task {
zv_request_t zvr;
taskq_ent_t ent;
} zv_request_task_t;
static zv_request_task_t *
zv_request_task_create(zv_request_t zvr)
{
zv_request_task_t *task;
task = kmem_alloc(sizeof (zv_request_task_t), KM_SLEEP);
taskq_init_ent(&task->ent);
task->zvr = zvr;
return (task);
}
static void
zv_request_task_free(zv_request_task_t *task)
{
kmem_free(task, sizeof (*task));
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
/*
* This is called when a new block multiqueue request comes in. A request
* contains one or more BIOs.
*/
static blk_status_t zvol_mq_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
const struct blk_mq_queue_data *bd)
{
struct request *rq = bd->rq;
zvol_state_t *zv = rq->q->queuedata;
/* Tell the kernel that we are starting to process this request */
blk_mq_start_request(rq);
if (blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq)) {
/* Skip non filesystem request */
blk_mq_end_request(rq, BLK_STS_IOERR);
return (BLK_STS_IOERR);
}
zvol_request_impl(zv, NULL, rq, 0);
/* Acknowledge to the kernel that we got this request */
return (BLK_STS_OK);
}
static struct blk_mq_ops zvol_blk_mq_queue_ops = {
.queue_rq = zvol_mq_queue_rq,
};
/* Initialize our blk-mq struct */
static int zvol_blk_mq_alloc_tag_set(zvol_state_t *zv)
{
struct zvol_state_os *zso = zv->zv_zso;
memset(&zso->tag_set, 0, sizeof (zso->tag_set));
/* Initialize tag set. */
zso->tag_set.ops = &zvol_blk_mq_queue_ops;
zso->tag_set.nr_hw_queues = zvol_blk_mq_actual_threads;
zso->tag_set.queue_depth = zvol_actual_blk_mq_queue_depth;
zso->tag_set.numa_node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
zso->tag_set.cmd_size = 0;
/*
* We need BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING here since we do blocking calls in
* zvol_request_impl()
*/
zso->tag_set.flags = BLK_MQ_F_SHOULD_MERGE | BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING;
zso->tag_set.driver_data = zv;
return (blk_mq_alloc_tag_set(&zso->tag_set));
}
#endif /* HAVE_BLK_MQ */
/*
* Given a path, return TRUE if path is a ZVOL.
*/
boolean_t
zvol_os_is_zvol(const char *path)
{
dev_t dev = 0;
if (vdev_lookup_bdev(path, &dev) != 0)
return (B_FALSE);
if (MAJOR(dev) == zvol_major)
return (B_TRUE);
return (B_FALSE);
}
static void
zvol_write(zv_request_t *zvr)
{
struct bio *bio = zvr->bio;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
struct request *rq = zvr->rq;
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(); 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;
zfs_uio_t uio;
zvol_state_t *zv = zvr->zv;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
struct request_queue *q;
struct gendisk *disk;
unsigned long start_time = 0;
boolean_t acct = B_FALSE;
ASSERT3P(zv, !=, NULL);
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
ASSERT3P(zv->zv_zilog, !=, NULL);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
q = zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue;
disk = zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk;
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 */
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (io_is_flush(bio, rq))
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
zil_commit(zv->zv_zilog, ZVOL_OBJ);
/* Some requests are just for flush and nothing else. */
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (io_size(bio, rq) == 0) {
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
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
END_IO(zv, bio, rq, 0);
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
return;
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
zfs_uio_bvec_init(&uio, bio, rq);
ssize_t start_resid = uio.uio_resid;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
/*
* With use_blk_mq, accounting is done by blk_mq_start_request()
* and blk_mq_end_request(), so we can skip it here.
*/
if (bio) {
acct = blk_queue_io_stat(q);
if (acct) {
start_time = blk_generic_start_io_acct(q, disk, WRITE,
bio);
}
}
boolean_t sync =
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
io_is_fua(bio, rq) || 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);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (bio && acct) {
blk_generic_end_io_acct(q, disk, WRITE, bio, start_time);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
END_IO(zv, bio, rq, -error);
}
static void
zvol_write_task(void *arg)
{
zv_request_task_t *task = arg;
zvol_write(&task->zvr);
zv_request_task_free(task);
}
static void
zvol_discard(zv_request_t *zvr)
{
struct bio *bio = zvr->bio;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
struct request *rq = zvr->rq;
zvol_state_t *zv = zvr->zv;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
uint64_t start = io_offset(bio, rq);
uint64_t size = io_size(bio, rq);
uint64_t end = start + size;
boolean_t sync;
int error = 0;
dmu_tx_t *tx;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
struct request_queue *q = zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue;
struct gendisk *disk = zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk;
unsigned long start_time = 0;
boolean_t acct = blk_queue_io_stat(q);
ASSERT3P(zv, !=, NULL);
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
ASSERT3P(zv->zv_zilog, !=, NULL);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (bio) {
acct = blk_queue_io_stat(q);
if (acct) {
start_time = blk_generic_start_io_acct(q, disk, WRITE,
bio);
}
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
sync = io_is_fua(bio, rq) || 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.
*/
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (!io_is_secure_erase(bio, rq)) {
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);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (bio && acct) {
blk_generic_end_io_acct(q, disk, WRITE, bio,
start_time);
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
END_IO(zv, bio, rq, -error);
}
static void
zvol_discard_task(void *arg)
{
zv_request_task_t *task = arg;
zvol_discard(&task->zvr);
zv_request_task_free(task);
}
static void
zvol_read(zv_request_t *zvr)
{
struct bio *bio = zvr->bio;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
struct request *rq = zvr->rq;
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(); 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;
zfs_uio_t uio;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
boolean_t acct = B_FALSE;
zvol_state_t *zv = zvr->zv;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
struct request_queue *q;
struct gendisk *disk;
unsigned long start_time = 0;
ASSERT3P(zv, !=, NULL);
ASSERT3U(zv->zv_open_count, >, 0);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
zfs_uio_bvec_init(&uio, bio, rq);
q = zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue;
disk = zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk;
ssize_t start_resid = uio.uio_resid;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
/*
* When blk-mq is being used, accounting is done by
* blk_mq_start_request() and blk_mq_end_request().
*/
if (bio) {
acct = blk_queue_io_stat(q);
if (acct)
start_time = blk_generic_start_io_acct(q, disk, READ,
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
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;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
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);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (bio && acct) {
blk_generic_end_io_acct(q, disk, READ, bio, start_time);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
END_IO(zv, bio, rq, -error);
}
static void
zvol_read_task(void *arg)
{
zv_request_task_t *task = arg;
zvol_read(&task->zvr);
zv_request_task_free(task);
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
/*
* Process a BIO or request
*
* Either 'bio' or 'rq' should be set depending on if we are processing a
* bio or a request (both should not be set).
*
* force_sync: Set to 0 to defer processing to a background taskq
* Set to 1 to process data synchronously
*/
static void
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
zvol_request_impl(zvol_state_t *zv, struct bio *bio, struct request *rq,
boolean_t force_sync)
{
fstrans_cookie_t cookie = spl_fstrans_mark();
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
uint64_t offset = io_offset(bio, rq);
uint64_t size = io_size(bio, rq);
int rw = io_data_dir(bio, rq);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (zvol_request_sync)
force_sync = 1;
zv_request_t zvr = {
.zv = zv,
.bio = bio,
.rq = rq,
};
if (io_has_data(bio, rq) && 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);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
END_IO(zv, bio, rq, -SET_ERROR(EIO));
goto out;
}
zv_request_task_t *task;
if (rw == WRITE) {
if (unlikely(zv->zv_flags & ZVOL_RDONLY)) {
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
END_IO(zv, bio, rq, -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_kstat.dk_zil_sums);
zv->zv_flags |= ZVOL_WRITTEN_TO;
zvol: call zil_replaying() during replay zil_replaying(zil, tx) has the side-effect of informing the ZIL that an entry has been replayed in the (still open) tx. The ZIL uses that information to record the replay progress in the ZIL header when that tx's txg syncs. ZPL log entries are not idempotent and logically dependent and thus calling zil_replaying() is necessary for correctness. For ZVOLs the question of correctness is more nuanced: ZVOL logs only TX_WRITE and TX_TRUNCATE, both of which are idempotent. Logical dependencies between two records exist only if the write or discard request had sync semantics or if the ranges affected by the records overlap. Thus, at a first glance, it would be correct to restart replay from the beginning if we crash before replay completes. But this does not address the following scenario: Assume one log record per LWB. The chain on disk is HDR -> 1:W(1, "A") -> 2:W(1, "B") -> 3:W(2, "X") -> 4:W(3, "Z") where N:W(O, C) represents log entry number N which is a TX_WRITE of C to offset A. We replay 1, 2 and 3 in one txg, sync that txg, then crash. Bit flips corrupt 2, 3, and 4. We come up again and restart replay from the beginning because we did not call zil_replaying() during replay. We replay 1 again, then interpret 2's invalid checksum as the end of the ZIL chain and call replay done. The replayed zvol content is "AX". If we had called zil_replaying() the HDR would have pointed to 3 and our resumed replay would not have replayed anything because 3 was corrupted, resulting in zvol content "BX". If 3 logically depends on 2 then the replay corrupted the ZVOL_OBJ's contents. This patch adds the zil_replaying() calls to the replay functions. Since the callbacks in the replay function need the zilog_t* pointer so that they can call zil_replaying() we open the ZIL while replaying in zvol_create_minor(). We also verify that replay has been done when on-demand-opening the ZIL on the first modifying bio. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Christian Schwarz <me@cschwarz.com> Closes #11667
2021-03-07 20:49:58 +03:00
/* replay / destroy done in zvol_create_minor */
VERIFY0((zv->zv_zilog->zl_header->zh_flags &
ZIL_REPLAY_NEEDED));
}
rw_downgrade(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
}
/*
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
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
* complete by calling END_IO() from the taskq callback.
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
*
* 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,
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
* which would call END_IO(). Unfortunately, the DMU/ZIL
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
* interfaces lack this functionality (they block waiting for
* the i/o to complete).
*/
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (io_is_discard(bio, rq) || io_is_secure_erase(bio, rq)) {
if (force_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 {
task = zv_request_task_create(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
taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq,
zvol_discard_task, task, 0, &task->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
}
} else {
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (force_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 {
task = zv_request_task_create(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
taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq,
zvol_write_task, task, 0, &task->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
}
}
} 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) {
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
END_IO(zv, bio, rq, 0);
goto out;
}
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. */
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (force_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 {
task = zv_request_task_create(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
taskq_dispatch_ent(zvol_taskq,
zvol_read_task, task, 0, &task->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
}
}
out:
spl_fstrans_unmark(cookie);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
}
#ifdef HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS
#ifdef HAVE_BDEV_SUBMIT_BIO_RETURNS_VOID
static void
zvol_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
#else
static blk_qc_t
zvol_submit_bio(struct bio *bio)
#endif
#else
static MAKE_REQUEST_FN_RET
zvol_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
#endif
{
#ifdef HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS
#if defined(HAVE_BIO_BDEV_DISK)
struct request_queue *q = bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk->queue;
#else
struct request_queue *q = bio->bi_disk->queue;
#endif
#endif
zvol_state_t *zv = q->queuedata;
zvol_request_impl(zv, bio, NULL, 0);
#if defined(HAVE_MAKE_REQUEST_FN_RET_QC) || \
defined(HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS) && \
!defined(HAVE_BDEV_SUBMIT_BIO_RETURNS_VOID)
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_FALSE;
#ifndef HAVE_BLKDEV_GET_ERESTARTSYS
hrtime_t timeout = MSEC2NSEC(zvol_open_timeout_ms);
hrtime_t start = gethrtime();
retry:
#endif
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_os_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);
} else {
drop_suspend = B_TRUE;
}
} else {
drop_suspend = B_TRUE;
}
}
rw_exit(&zvol_state_lock);
ASSERT(MUTEX_HELD(&zv->zv_state_lock));
if (zv->zv_open_count == 0) {
boolean_t drop_namespace = B_FALSE;
ASSERT(RW_READ_HELD(&zv->zv_suspend_lock));
/*
* In all other call paths the spa_namespace_lock is taken
* before the bdev->bd_mutex lock. However, on open(2)
* the __blkdev_get() function calls fops->open() with the
* bdev->bd_mutex lock held. This can result in a deadlock
* when zvols from one pool are used as vdevs in another.
*
* To prevent a lock inversion deadlock we preemptively
* take the spa_namespace_lock. Normally the lock will not
* be contended and this is safe because spa_open_common()
* handles the case where the caller already holds the
* spa_namespace_lock.
*
* When the lock cannot be aquired after multiple retries
* this must be the vdev on zvol deadlock case and we have
* no choice but to return an error. For 5.12 and older
* kernels returning -ERESTARTSYS will result in the
* bdev->bd_mutex being dropped, then reacquired, and
* fops->open() being called again. This process can be
* repeated safely until both locks are acquired. For 5.13
* and newer the -ERESTARTSYS retry logic was removed from
* the kernel so the only option is to return the error for
* the caller to handle it.
*/
if (!mutex_owned(&spa_namespace_lock)) {
if (!mutex_tryenter(&spa_namespace_lock)) {
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
#ifdef HAVE_BLKDEV_GET_ERESTARTSYS
schedule();
return (SET_ERROR(-ERESTARTSYS));
#else
if ((gethrtime() - start) > timeout)
return (SET_ERROR(-ERESTARTSYS));
schedule_timeout(MSEC_TO_TICK(10));
goto retry;
#endif
} else {
drop_namespace = B_TRUE;
}
}
error = -zvol_first_open(zv, !(flag & FMODE_WRITE));
if (drop_namespace)
mutex_exit(&spa_namespace_lock);
}
if (error == 0) {
if ((flag & FMODE_WRITE) && (zv->zv_flags & ZVOL_RDONLY)) {
if (zv->zv_open_count == 0)
zvol_last_close(zv);
error = SET_ERROR(-EROFS);
} else {
zv->zv_open_count++;
}
}
mutex_exit(&zv->zv_state_lock);
if (drop_suspend)
rw_exit(&zv->zv_suspend_lock);
if (error == 0)
zfs_check_media_change(bdev);
return (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);
}
int
zvol_os_update_volsize(zvol_state_t *zv, uint64_t volsize)
{
struct gendisk *disk = zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk;
#if defined(HAVE_REVALIDATE_DISK_SIZE)
revalidate_disk_size(disk, zvol_revalidate_disk(disk) == 0);
#elif defined(HAVE_REVALIDATE_DISK)
revalidate_disk(disk);
#else
zvol_revalidate_disk(disk);
#endif
return (0);
}
void
zvol_os_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);
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
/*
* Why have two separate block_device_operations structs?
*
* Normally we'd just have one, and assign 'submit_bio' as needed. However,
* it's possible the user's kernel is built with CONSTIFY_PLUGIN, meaning we
* can't just change submit_bio dynamically at runtime. So just create two
* separate structs to get around this.
*/
static const struct block_device_operations zvol_ops_blk_mq = {
.open = zvol_open,
.release = zvol_release,
.ioctl = zvol_ioctl,
.compat_ioctl = zvol_compat_ioctl,
.check_events = zvol_check_events,
#ifdef HAVE_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS_REVALIDATE_DISK
.revalidate_disk = zvol_revalidate_disk,
#endif
.getgeo = zvol_getgeo,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
};
static const 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,
#ifdef HAVE_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS_REVALIDATE_DISK
.revalidate_disk = zvol_revalidate_disk,
#endif
.getgeo = zvol_getgeo,
.owner = THIS_MODULE,
#ifdef HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS
.submit_bio = zvol_submit_bio,
#endif
};
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
static int
zvol_alloc_non_blk_mq(struct zvol_state_os *zso)
{
#if defined(HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS)
#if defined(HAVE_BLK_ALLOC_DISK)
zso->zvo_disk = blk_alloc_disk(NUMA_NO_NODE);
if (zso->zvo_disk == NULL)
return (1);
zso->zvo_disk->minors = ZVOL_MINORS;
zso->zvo_queue = zso->zvo_disk->queue;
#else
zso->zvo_queue = blk_alloc_queue(NUMA_NO_NODE);
if (zso->zvo_queue == NULL)
return (1);
zso->zvo_disk = alloc_disk(ZVOL_MINORS);
if (zso->zvo_disk == NULL) {
blk_cleanup_queue(zso->zvo_queue);
return (1);
}
zso->zvo_disk->queue = zso->zvo_queue;
#endif /* HAVE_BLK_ALLOC_DISK */
#else
zso->zvo_queue = blk_generic_alloc_queue(zvol_request, NUMA_NO_NODE);
if (zso->zvo_queue == NULL)
return (1);
zso->zvo_disk = alloc_disk(ZVOL_MINORS);
if (zso->zvo_disk == NULL) {
blk_cleanup_queue(zso->zvo_queue);
return (1);
}
zso->zvo_disk->queue = zso->zvo_queue;
#endif /* HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS */
return (0);
}
static int
zvol_alloc_blk_mq(zvol_state_t *zv)
{
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
struct zvol_state_os *zso = zv->zv_zso;
/* Allocate our blk-mq tag_set */
if (zvol_blk_mq_alloc_tag_set(zv) != 0)
return (1);
#if defined(HAVE_BLK_ALLOC_DISK)
zso->zvo_disk = blk_mq_alloc_disk(&zso->tag_set, zv);
if (zso->zvo_disk == NULL) {
blk_mq_free_tag_set(&zso->tag_set);
return (1);
}
zso->zvo_queue = zso->zvo_disk->queue;
zso->zvo_disk->minors = ZVOL_MINORS;
#else
zso->zvo_disk = alloc_disk(ZVOL_MINORS);
if (zso->zvo_disk == NULL) {
blk_cleanup_queue(zso->zvo_queue);
blk_mq_free_tag_set(&zso->tag_set);
return (1);
}
/* Allocate queue */
zso->zvo_queue = blk_mq_init_queue(&zso->tag_set);
if (IS_ERR(zso->zvo_queue)) {
blk_mq_free_tag_set(&zso->tag_set);
return (1);
}
/* Our queue is now created, assign it to our disk */
zso->zvo_disk->queue = zso->zvo_queue;
#endif
#endif
return (0);
}
/*
* 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;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
int ret;
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);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
zv->zv_zso->use_blk_mq = zvol_use_blk_mq;
#endif
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
/*
* The block layer has 3 interfaces for getting BIOs:
*
* 1. blk-mq request queues (new)
* 2. submit_bio() (oldest)
* 3. regular request queues (old).
*
* Each of those interfaces has two permutations:
*
* a) We have blk_alloc_disk()/blk_mq_alloc_disk(), which allocates
* both the disk and its queue (5.14 kernel or newer)
*
* b) We don't have blk_*alloc_disk(), and have to allocate the
* disk and the queue separately. (5.13 kernel or older)
*/
if (zv->zv_zso->use_blk_mq) {
ret = zvol_alloc_blk_mq(zv);
zso->zvo_disk->fops = &zvol_ops_blk_mq;
} else {
ret = zvol_alloc_non_blk_mq(zso);
zso->zvo_disk->fops = &zvol_ops;
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (ret != 0)
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);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (!zv->zv_zso->use_blk_mq) {
/* Disable write merging in favor of the ZIO pipeline. */
blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_NOMERGES, zso->zvo_queue);
}
/* Enable /proc/diskstats */
blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_IO_STAT, zso->zvo_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;
/*
* Setting ZFS_VOLMODE_DEV disables partitioning on ZVOL devices.
* This is accomplished by limiting the number of minors for the
* device to one and explicitly disabling partition scanning.
*/
if (volmode == ZFS_VOLMODE_DEV) {
zso->zvo_disk->minors = 1;
zso->zvo_disk->flags &= ~ZFS_GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT;
zso->zvo_disk->flags |= ZFS_GENHD_FL_NO_PART;
}
zso->zvo_disk->first_minor = (dev & MINORMASK);
zso->zvo_disk->private_data = zv;
snprintf(zso->zvo_disk->disk_name, DISK_NAME_LEN, "%s%d",
ZVOL_DEV_NAME, (dev & MINORMASK));
return (zv);
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.
*/
void
zvol_os_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);
#if defined(HAVE_SUBMIT_BIO_IN_BLOCK_DEVICE_OPERATIONS) && \
defined(HAVE_BLK_ALLOC_DISK)
#if defined(HAVE_BLK_CLEANUP_DISK)
blk_cleanup_disk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
#else
put_disk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
#endif
#else
blk_cleanup_queue(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue);
put_disk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
#endif
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
if (zv->zv_zso->use_blk_mq)
blk_mq_free_tag_set(&zv->zv_zso->tag_set);
#endif
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.
*/
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);
bool replayed_zil = B_FALSE;
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);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
if (zv->zv_zso->use_blk_mq) {
/*
* IO requests can be really big (1MB). When an IO request
* comes in, it is passed off to zvol_read() or zvol_write()
* in a new thread, where it is chunked up into 'volblocksize'
* sized pieces and processed. So for example, if the request
* is a 1MB write and your volblocksize is 128k, one zvol_write
* thread will take that request and sequentially do ten 128k
* IOs. This is due to the fact that the thread needs to lock
* each volblocksize sized block. So you might be wondering:
* "instead of passing the whole 1MB request to one thread,
* why not pass ten individual 128k chunks to ten threads and
* process the whole write in parallel?" The short answer is
* that there's a sweet spot number of chunks that balances
* the greater parallelism with the added overhead of more
* threads. The sweet spot can be different depending on if you
* have a read or write heavy workload. Writes typically want
* high chunk counts while reads typically want lower ones. On
* a test pool with 6 NVMe drives in a 3x 2-disk mirror
* configuration, with volblocksize=8k, the sweet spot for good
* sequential reads and writes was at 8 chunks.
*/
/*
* Below we tell the kernel how big we want our requests
* to be. You would think that blk_queue_io_opt() would be
* used to do this since it is used to "set optimal request
* size for the queue", but that doesn't seem to do
* anything - the kernel still gives you huge requests
* with tons of little PAGE_SIZE segments contained within it.
*
* Knowing that the kernel will just give you PAGE_SIZE segments
* no matter what, you can say "ok, I want PAGE_SIZE byte
* segments, and I want 'N' of them per request", where N is
* the correct number of segments for the volblocksize and
* number of chunks you want.
*/
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
if (zvol_blk_mq_blocks_per_thread != 0) {
unsigned int chunks;
chunks = MIN(zvol_blk_mq_blocks_per_thread, UINT16_MAX);
blk_queue_max_segment_size(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
PAGE_SIZE);
blk_queue_max_segments(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
(zv->zv_volblocksize * chunks) / PAGE_SIZE);
} else {
/*
* Special case: zvol_blk_mq_blocks_per_thread = 0
* Max everything out.
*/
blk_queue_max_segments(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
UINT16_MAX);
blk_queue_max_segment_size(zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue,
UINT_MAX);
}
#endif
} else {
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);
#ifdef QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD
blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_DISCARD, zv->zv_zso->zvo_queue);
#endif
#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
ASSERT3P(zv->zv_kstat.dk_kstats, ==, NULL);
error = dataset_kstats_create(&zv->zv_kstat, zv->zv_objset);
if (error)
goto out_dmu_objset_disown;
zvol: call zil_replaying() during replay zil_replaying(zil, tx) has the side-effect of informing the ZIL that an entry has been replayed in the (still open) tx. The ZIL uses that information to record the replay progress in the ZIL header when that tx's txg syncs. ZPL log entries are not idempotent and logically dependent and thus calling zil_replaying() is necessary for correctness. For ZVOLs the question of correctness is more nuanced: ZVOL logs only TX_WRITE and TX_TRUNCATE, both of which are idempotent. Logical dependencies between two records exist only if the write or discard request had sync semantics or if the ranges affected by the records overlap. Thus, at a first glance, it would be correct to restart replay from the beginning if we crash before replay completes. But this does not address the following scenario: Assume one log record per LWB. The chain on disk is HDR -> 1:W(1, "A") -> 2:W(1, "B") -> 3:W(2, "X") -> 4:W(3, "Z") where N:W(O, C) represents log entry number N which is a TX_WRITE of C to offset A. We replay 1, 2 and 3 in one txg, sync that txg, then crash. Bit flips corrupt 2, 3, and 4. We come up again and restart replay from the beginning because we did not call zil_replaying() during replay. We replay 1 again, then interpret 2's invalid checksum as the end of the ZIL chain and call replay done. The replayed zvol content is "AX". If we had called zil_replaying() the HDR would have pointed to 3 and our resumed replay would not have replayed anything because 3 was corrupted, resulting in zvol content "BX". If 3 logically depends on 2 then the replay corrupted the ZVOL_OBJ's contents. This patch adds the zil_replaying() calls to the replay functions. Since the callbacks in the replay function need the zilog_t* pointer so that they can call zil_replaying() we open the ZIL while replaying in zvol_create_minor(). We also verify that replay has been done when on-demand-opening the ZIL on the first modifying bio. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Christian Schwarz <me@cschwarz.com> Closes #11667
2021-03-07 20:49:58 +03:00
ASSERT3P(zv->zv_zilog, ==, NULL);
zv->zv_zilog = zil_open(os, zvol_get_data, &zv->zv_kstat.dk_zil_sums);
if (spa_writeable(dmu_objset_spa(os))) {
if (zil_replay_disable)
replayed_zil = zil_destroy(zv->zv_zilog, B_FALSE);
else
replayed_zil = zil_replay(os, zv, zvol_replay_vector);
}
if (replayed_zil)
zil_close(zv->zv_zilog);
zvol: call zil_replaying() during replay zil_replaying(zil, tx) has the side-effect of informing the ZIL that an entry has been replayed in the (still open) tx. The ZIL uses that information to record the replay progress in the ZIL header when that tx's txg syncs. ZPL log entries are not idempotent and logically dependent and thus calling zil_replaying() is necessary for correctness. For ZVOLs the question of correctness is more nuanced: ZVOL logs only TX_WRITE and TX_TRUNCATE, both of which are idempotent. Logical dependencies between two records exist only if the write or discard request had sync semantics or if the ranges affected by the records overlap. Thus, at a first glance, it would be correct to restart replay from the beginning if we crash before replay completes. But this does not address the following scenario: Assume one log record per LWB. The chain on disk is HDR -> 1:W(1, "A") -> 2:W(1, "B") -> 3:W(2, "X") -> 4:W(3, "Z") where N:W(O, C) represents log entry number N which is a TX_WRITE of C to offset A. We replay 1, 2 and 3 in one txg, sync that txg, then crash. Bit flips corrupt 2, 3, and 4. We come up again and restart replay from the beginning because we did not call zil_replaying() during replay. We replay 1 again, then interpret 2's invalid checksum as the end of the ZIL chain and call replay done. The replayed zvol content is "AX". If we had called zil_replaying() the HDR would have pointed to 3 and our resumed replay would not have replayed anything because 3 was corrupted, resulting in zvol content "BX". If 3 logically depends on 2 then the replay corrupted the ZVOL_OBJ's contents. This patch adds the zil_replaying() calls to the replay functions. Since the callbacks in the replay function need the zilog_t* pointer so that they can call zil_replaying() we open the ZIL while replaying in zvol_create_minor(). We also verify that replay has been done when on-demand-opening the ZIL on the first modifying bio. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Christian Schwarz <me@cschwarz.com> Closes #11667
2021-03-07 20:49:58 +03:00
zv->zv_zilog = NULL;
/*
* 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(zvol_prefetch_bytes, 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);
#ifdef HAVE_ADD_DISK_RET
error = add_disk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
#else
add_disk(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk);
#endif
} 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);
}
void
zvol_os_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);
}
void
zvol_os_set_disk_ro(zvol_state_t *zv, int flags)
{
set_disk_ro(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk, flags);
}
void
zvol_os_set_capacity(zvol_state_t *zv, uint64_t capacity)
{
set_capacity(zv->zv_zso->zvo_disk, capacity);
}
int
zvol_init(void)
{
int error;
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
/*
* zvol_threads is the module param the user passes in.
*
* zvol_actual_threads is what we use internally, since the user can
* pass zvol_thread = 0 to mean "use all the CPUs" (the default).
*/
static unsigned int zvol_actual_threads;
if (zvol_threads == 0) {
/*
* See dde9380a1 for why 32 was chosen here. This should
* probably be refined to be some multiple of the number
* of CPUs.
*/
zvol_actual_threads = MAX(num_online_cpus(), 32);
} else {
zvol_actual_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);
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
if (zvol_blk_mq_queue_depth == 0) {
zvol_actual_blk_mq_queue_depth = BLKDEV_DEFAULT_RQ;
} else {
zvol_actual_blk_mq_queue_depth =
MAX(zvol_blk_mq_queue_depth, BLKDEV_MIN_RQ);
}
if (zvol_blk_mq_threads == 0) {
zvol_blk_mq_actual_threads = num_online_cpus();
} else {
zvol_blk_mq_actual_threads = MIN(MAX(zvol_blk_mq_threads, 1),
1024);
}
#endif
zvol_taskq = taskq_create(ZVOL_DRIVER, zvol_actual_threads, maxclsyspri,
zvol_actual_threads, INT_MAX, TASKQ_PREPOPULATE | TASKQ_DYNAMIC);
if (zvol_taskq == NULL) {
unregister_blkdev(zvol_major, ZVOL_DRIVER);
return (-ENOMEM);
}
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
zvol_init_impl();
ida_init(&zvol_ida);
return (0);
}
void
zvol_fini(void)
{
zvol_fini_impl();
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);
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_threads, "Number of threads to handle I/O requests. Set"
"to 0 to use all active CPUs");
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");
2022-06-09 17:10:38 +03:00
#ifdef HAVE_BLK_MQ
module_param(zvol_blk_mq_queue_depth, uint, 0644);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_blk_mq_queue_depth, "Default blk-mq queue depth");
module_param(zvol_use_blk_mq, uint, 0644);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_use_blk_mq, "Use the blk-mq API for zvols");
module_param(zvol_blk_mq_blocks_per_thread, uint, 0644);
MODULE_PARM_DESC(zvol_blk_mq_blocks_per_thread,
"Process volblocksize blocks per thread");
#endif
/* END CSTYLED */