[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel
    James Bottomley wrote:
    > The two target architectures perform essentially identical functions, so
    > there's only really room for one in the kernel. Right at the moment,
    > it's STGT. Problems in STGT come from the user<->kernel boundary which
    > can be mitigated in a variety of ways. The fact that the figures are
    > pretty much comparable on non IB networks shows this.
    > I really need a whole lot more evidence than at worst a 20% performance
    > difference on IB to pull one implementation out and replace it with
    > another. Particularly as there's no real evidence that STGT can't be
    > tweaked to recover the 20% even on IB.


    Although the performance difference between STGT and SCST is apparent,
    this isn't the only point why SCST is better. I've already written about
    it many times in various mailing lists, but let me summarize it one more
    time here.

    As you know, almost all kernel parts can be done in user space,
    including all the drivers, networking, I/O management with block/SCSI
    initiator subsystem and disk cache manager. But does it mean that
    currently Linux kernel is bad and all the above should be (re)done in
    user space instead? I believe, not. Linux isn't a microkernel for very
    pragmatic reasons: simplicity and performance. So, additional important
    point why SCST is better is simplicity.

    For SCSI target, especially with hardware target card, data are came
    from kernel and eventually served by kernel, which does actual I/O or
    getting/putting data from/to cache. Dividing requests processing between
    user and kernel space creates unnecessary interface layer(s) and
    effectively makes the requests processing job distributed with all its
    complexity and reliability problems. From my point of view, having such
    distribution, where user space is master side and kernel is slave is
    rather wrong, because:

    1. It makes kernel depend from user program, which services it and
    provides for it its routines, while the regular paradigm is the
    opposite: kernel services user space applications. As a direct
    consequence from it that there is no real protection for the kernel from
    faults in the STGT core code without excessive effort, which, no
    surprise, wasn't currently done and, seems, is never going to be done.
    So, on practice debugging and developing under STGT isn't easier, than
    if the whole code was in the kernel space, but, actually, harder (see
    below why).

    2. It requires new complicated interface between kernel and user spaces
    that creates additional maintenance and debugging headaches, which don't
    exist for kernel only code. Linus Torvalds some time ago perfectly
    described why it is bad, see, and

    3. It makes for SCSI target impossible to use (at least, on a simple and
    sane way) many effective optimizations: zero-copy cached I/O, more
    control over read-ahead, device queue unplugging-plugging, etc. One
    example of already implemented such features is zero-copy network data
    transmission, done in simple 260 lines put_page_callback patch. This
    optimization is especially important for the user space gate (scst_user
    module), see below for details.

    The whole point that development for kernel is harder, than for user
    space, is totally nonsense nowadays. It's different, yes, in some ways
    more limited, yes, but not harder. For ones who need gdb (I for many
    years - don't) kernel has kgdb, plus it also has many not available for
    user space or more limited there debug facilities like lockdep, lockup
    detection, oprofile, etc. (I don't mention wider choice of more
    effectively implemented synchronization primitives and not only them).

    For people who need complicated target devices emulation, like, e.g., in
    case of VTL (Virtual Tape Library), where there is a need to operate
    with large mmap'ed memory areas, SCST provides gateway to the user space
    (scst_user module), but, in contrast with STGT, it's done in regular
    "kernel - master, user application - slave" paradigm, so it's reliable
    and no fault in user space device emulator can break kernel and other
    user space applications. Plus, since SCSI target state machine and
    memory management are in the kernel, it's very effective and allows only
    one kernel-user space switch per SCSI command.

    Also, I should note here, that in the current state STGT in many aspects
    doesn't fully conform SCSI specifications, especially in area of
    management events, like Unit Attentions generation and processing, and
    it doesn't look like somebody cares about it. At the same time, SCST
    pays big attention to fully conform SCSI specifications, because price
    of non-conformance is a possible user's data corruption.

    Returning to performance, modern SCSI transports, e.g. InfiniBand, have
    as low link latency as 1(!) microsecond. For comparison, the
    inter-thread context switch time on a modern system is about the same,
    syscall time - about 0.1 microsecond. So, only ten empty syscalls or one
    context switch add the same latency as the link. Even 1Gbps Ethernet has
    less, than 100 microseconds of round-trip latency.

    You, probably, know, that QLogic Fibre Channel target driver for SCST
    allows commands being executed either directly from soft IRQ, or from
    the corresponding thread. There is a steady 5-7% difference in IOPS
    between those modes on 512 bytes reads on nullio using 4Gbps link. So, a
    single additional inter-kernel-thread context switch costs 5-7% of IOPS.

    Another source of additional unavoidable with the user space approach
    latency is data copy to/from cache. With the fully kernel space
    approach, cache can be used directly, so no extra copy will be needed.
    We can estimate how much latency the data copying adds. On the modern
    systems memory copy throughput is less than 2GB/s, so on 20Gbps
    InfiniBand link it almost doubles data transfer latency.

    So, putting code in the user space you should accept the extra latency
    it adds. Many, if not most, real-life workloads more or less latency,
    not throughput, bound, so there shouldn't be surprise that single stream
    "dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null" on initiator gives too low values. Such
    "benchmark" isn't less important and practical, than all the
    multithreaded latency insensitive benchmarks, which people like running,
    because it does essentially the same as most Linux processes do when
    they read data from files.

    You may object me that the target's backstorage device(s) latency is a
    lot more, than 1 microsecond, but that is relevant only if data are
    read/written from/to the actual backstorage media, not from the cache,
    even from the backstorage device's cache. Nothing prevents target from
    having 8 or even 64GB of cache, so most even random accesses could be
    served by it. This is especially important for sync writes.

    Thus, why SCST is better:

    1. It is more simple, because it's monolithic, so all its components are
    in one place and communicate using direct function calls. Hence, it is
    smaller, faster, more reliable and maintainable. Currently it's bigger,
    than STGT, just because it supports more features, see (2).

    2. It supports more features: 1 to many pass-through support with all
    necessary for it functionality, including support for non-disk SCSI
    devices, like tapes, SGV cache, BLOCKIO, where requests converted to
    bio's and directly sent to block level (this mode is effective for
    random mostly workloads with data set size >> memory size on the
    target), etc.

    3. It has better performance and going to have it even better. SCST only
    now enters in the phase, where it starts exploiting all advantages of
    being in the kernel. Particularly, zero-copy cached I/O is currently
    being implemented.

    4. It provides safer and more effective interface to emulate target
    devices in the user space via scst_user module.

    5. It much more confirms to SCSI specifications (see above).


     \ /
      Last update: 2008-01-30 12:19    [W:0.061 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site