Re: [PATCH 0/8] md/raid5: scalability and rebuild-path improvements

Hi,

在 2026/6/24 23:54, Hiroshi Nishida 写道:
> This series collects small, individually low-risk md/raid5 changes for
> large, many-core, many-disk arrays.  Their common theme is reducing
> per-stripe and stripe-cache contention, so the benefit appears mainly
> when the raid5 stripe-handling worker threads are in use
> (group_thread_cnt > 0); at the default group_thread_cnt = 0 (a single
> handling thread) the series is essentially neutral.
>
>   - patches 1-3 remove signed arithmetic from a hot-path divisor, lift an
>     arbitrary stripe-cache size cap, and widen a badblock length argument
>     that currently truncates large ranges;
>   - patch 4 raises NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS (8 -> 32) to spread stripe-hash
>     contention on high core-count systems;
>   - patches 5 and 8 reduce per-stripe overhead in the resync/recovery
>     path and bound the share of the stripe cache a rebuild may hold while
>     user I/O is competing;
>   - patch 6 allocates each worker group's array on its own NUMA node;
>   - patch 7 raises MAX_STRIPE_BATCH (8 -> 32).
>
> Measured effect, treatment vs baseline, % change in mean IOPS (N=3),
> swept over group_thread_cnt (RAID6 4+2, 22-core host, ramdisk members):

Testing with ramdisk does serve as a useful reference, but it does not reflect
real world usage.

>
>    workload                       gtc=0   gtc=2   gtc=4   gtc=8
>    random 4K write (RMW)          +4.2%   +8.1%  +17.4%   +6.5%
>    DB mixed 75/25 8K              +0.4%   +4.2%  +10.3%   +4.7%
>    high-concurrency 70/30 4K      +3.9%   +1.2%  +10.0%   +0.2%
>    OLTP 70/30 16K                 -0.3%   +4.7%  +10.1%   +9.3%
>    partial-stripe write 8K        +1.1%   +4.8%  +11.2%  +14.2%

With a quick review I saw many static configurations is changed, I agree
these changes can improve arrays with ssd/nvme and a system with large
memory available. However, we already tested with hdd and about 8G memory
available, these changes will not improve performance at all, with the
extra memory overhead.

I can accept make those values configurable, but not direct modifications.
As validation is required for numerous scenarios. Memory resources are precious
especially for most consumer NAS devices.

>
> At the default single handling thread (group_thread_cnt = 0) the series is
> neutral (no regression).  As worker threads are added the gain grows,
> peaking broadly around group_thread_cnt = 4 at roughly +10-17% across the
> whole mix; at gtc = 8 the write-heavy workloads keep gaining while the
> read-heavy high-concurrency case has saturated.  (Per-run cv was <1%
> except the random-write test, ~5-9%, from a cold first run.)
>
> These numbers are on a ramdisk, which removes device latency and so
> overstates the CPU-side contention effect relative to a real device;
> they show the direction and the group_thread_cnt dependence, not an
> absolute speedup.  The stripe-hash/batch patches (4, 7) and the cache cap
> (2) drive this; patch 6 only matters on multi-socket systems (not
> exercised above) and patches 5/8 act on the resync/recovery path rather
> than this steady-state workload.
>
> Reproduction (stock mdadm + fio):
>    mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=6 --raid-devices=6 --chunk=512 \
>          --assume-clean <6 members>
>    echo 16384 > /sys/block/md0/md/stripe_cache_size
>    echo N     > /sys/block/md0/md/group_thread_cnt      # N = 0,2,4,8
>    fio --filename=/dev/md0 --direct=1 --ioengine=libaio --group_reporting \
>        --time_based --runtime=15 --name=w <per-workload opts>:
>      random write   : --rw=randwrite              --bs=4k  --numjobs=4  --iodepth=32
>      DB mixed       : --rw=randrw --rwmixread=75  --bs=8k  --numjobs=8  --iodepth=16
>      high-concur.   : --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70  --bs=4k  --numjobs=16 --iodepth=8
>      OLTP           : --rw=randrw --rwmixread=70  --bs=16k --numjobs=6  --iodepth=16
>      partial-stripe : --rw=randwrite              --bs=8k  --numjobs=4  --iodepth=32
>
> Each patch stands on its own; I am happy to drop or defer any that is not
> justified on its own merit.
>
> Functional testing on RAID5 and RAID6: create, fail a member, rebuild
> onto a spare / re-add, full data read-back verified, and scrub
> ("check") reporting mismatch_cnt == 0.  The series was also exercised
> with KASAN and lockdep enabled -- including heavy group_thread_cnt
> churn on a multi-node setup to stress the per-NUMA-node worker
> allocation and the raid5_quiesce hash-lock-all path -- with no reports.
>
> Hiroshi Nishida (8):
>    md: change chunk_sectors and stripe cache counts to unsigned int
>    md/raid5: raise stripe cache limit from 32768 to 262144
>    md: widen badblock sectors param from int to sector_t
>    md/raid5: raise NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS from 8 to 32
>    md/raid5: submit a window of stripes during resync/recovery
>    md/raid5: allocate worker groups per NUMA node
>    md/raid5: raise MAX_STRIPE_BATCH from 8 to 32
>    md/raid5: reserve stripe cache for user I/O during rebuild
>
>   drivers/md/md.c    |   4 +-
>   drivers/md/md.h    |  10 ++--
>   drivers/md/raid5.c | 129 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>   drivers/md/raid5.h |  33 ++++++++----
>   4 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)
>
> base-commit: 55b77337bdd088c77461588e5ec094421b89911b
>
-- 
Thanks,
Kuai