-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move gethrtime() calls out of vdev queue lock. #12281
Conversation
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Sponsored-By: iXsystems, Inc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This seems fine. Out of curiosity, what are the most common systems that don't have a fast gethrtime() by default? Or are people disabling TSC for some reason?
There were plenty of systems with problematic TSC over the years: changing rate, stopping in deep idle, not coherent on SMP, slow in VMs, etc. Last time it is better, but why depend on something if it can be avoided? And even "fast" gethrtime() I see in profiles. |
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Sponsored-By: iXsystems, Inc. Closes openzfs#12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Closes openzfs#12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Closes openzfs#12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Closes openzfs#12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Closes openzfs#12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Closes #12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Closes openzfs#12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Sponsored-By: iXsystems, Inc. Closes openzfs#12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower (non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the lock itself, which this change actually reduces. Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Sponsored-By: iXsystems, Inc. Closes openzfs#12281
This dramatically reduces the lock contention on systems with slower
(non-TSC) timecounters. With TSC the difference is minimal, but since
this lock is pretty congested, any improvement counts. Plus I don't
see any reason to do it under the lock other than the latency of the
lock itself, which this change actually reduces.
How Has This Been Tested?
On 40-thread FreeBSD system switched to use ACPI timecounter instead of TSC on heavy uncached 4KB ZVOLs reads profiler shows reduction of CPU time spent spinning on the vdev queue lock from 25% to almost zero.
Types of changes
Checklist:
Signed-off-by
.