Re: [dm-devel] [RFC] dm-userspace
From: Ming Zhang
Date: Wed May 10 2006 - 09:27:55 EST
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 16:02 -0700, Dan Smith wrote:
> (I'm including the xen-devel list on this, as things are starting to
> get interesting).
> MZ> do u have any benchmark results about overhead?
> So, I've spent some time over the last week working to improve
> performance and collect some benchmark data.
> I moved to using slab caches for the request and remap objects, which
> helped a little. I also added a poll() method to the control device,
> which improved performance significantly. Finally, I changed the
> internal remap storage data structure to a hash table, which had a
> very large performance impact (about 8x).
why need a poll here? ask a dumb question.
this is interesting. have u ever check the average loop up path length
with single queue and has table? this can improve by 8X, quite
> Copying data to a device backed by dm-userspace presents a worst-case
> scenario, especially with a small block-size like what qcow uses. In
> one of my tests, I copy about 20MB of data to a dm-userspace device,
> backed by files hooked up to the loopback driver. I compare this with
> a "control" of a single loop-mounted image file (i.e., without
> dm-userspace or CoW). I measured the time to mount, copy, and unmount
> the device, which (with the recent performance improvements) are
> Normal Loop: 1 seconds
> dm-userspace/qcow: 10 seconds
> For comparison, before adding poll() and the hash table, the
> dm-userspace number was over 70 seconds.
> One of the most interesting cases for us, however, is providing a
> CoW-based VM disk image, which is mostly used for reading, with a
> small amount of writing for configuration data. To test this, I used
> Xen to compare a fresh FC4 boot (firstboot, where things like SSH keys
> are generated and written to disk) that used an LVM volume as root to
> using dm-userspace (and loopback-files) as the root. The numbers are
> LVM root: 26 seconds
> dm-userspace/qcow: 27 seconds
this is quite impressive, i think application take most of the time and
some time are overlapped with io. and with little io here, this little
difference is what u can get. i think this will be very helpful for
diskless san boot.
> Note that this does not yet include any read-ahead type behavior, nor
> does it include priming the kernel module with remaps at create-time
> (which results in a few initial compulsory "misses"). Also, I removed
> the remap expiration functionality while adding the hash table and
> have not yet added it back, so that may further improve performance
> for large amounts of remaps (and bucket collisions).
> Here is a link to a patch against 126.96.36.199:
> Here are links to the userspace library, as well as the cow daemon,
> which provides qcow support:
> (Note that the daemon is still rather rough, and the qcow
> implementation has some bugs. However, it works for light testing and
> the occasional luck-assisted heavy testing)
> As always, comments welcome and appreciated :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/