Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
zfs - Zettabyte File System
Port from OpenZFS
ca5777793 Reduce loaded range tree memory usage
This patch implements a new tree structure for ZFS, and uses it to store range trees more efficiently. The new structure is approximately a B-tree, though there are some small differences from the usual characterizations. The tree has core nodes and leaf nodes; each contain data elements, which the elements in the core nodes acting as separators between its children. The difference between core and leaf nodes is that the core nodes have an array of children, while leaf nodes don't. Every node in the tree may be only partially full; in most cases, they are all at least 50% full (in terms of element count) except for the root node, which can be less full. Underfull nodes will steal from their neighbors or merge to remain full enough, while overfull nodes will split in two. The data elements are contained in tree-controlled buffers; they are copied into these on insertion, and overwritten on deletion. This means that the elements are not independently allocated, which reduces overhead, but also means they can't be shared between trees (and also that pointers to them are only valid until a side-effectful tree operation occurs). The overhead varies based on how dense the tree is, but is usually on the order of about 50% of the element size; the per-node overheads are very small, and so don't make a significant difference. The trees can accept arbitrary records; they accept a size and a comparator to allow them to be used for a variety of purposes. The new trees replace the AVL trees used in the range trees today. Currently, the range_seg_t structure contains three 8 byte integers of payload and two 24 byte avl_tree_node_ts to handle its storage in both an offset-sorted tree and a size-sorted tree (total size: 64 bytes). In the new model, the range seg structures are usually two 4 byte integers, but a separate one needs to exist for the size-sorted and offset-sorted tree. Between the raw size, the 50% overhead, and the double storage, the new btrees are expected to use 8*1.5*2 = 24 bytes per record, or 33.3% as much memory as the AVL trees (this is for the purposes of storing metaslab range trees; for other purposes, like scrubs, they use ~50% as much memory). We reduced the size of the payload in the range segments by teaching range trees about starting offsets and shifts; since metaslabs have a fixed starting offset, and they all operate in terms of disk sectors, we can store the ranges using 4-byte integers as long as the size of the metaslab divided by the sector size is less than 2^32. For 512-byte sectors, this is a 2^41 (or 2TB) metaslab, which with the default settings corresponds to a 256PB disk. 4k sector disks can handle metaslabs up to 2^46 bytes, or 2^63 byte disks. Since we do not anticipate disks of this size in the near future, there should be almost no cases where metaslabs need 64-byte integers to store their ranges. We do still have the capability to store 64-byte integer ranges to account for cases where we are storing per-vdev (or per-dnode) trees, which could reasonably go above the limits discussed. We also do not store fill information in the compact version of the node, since it is only used for sorted scrub. We also optimized the metaslab loading process in various other ways to offset some inefficiencies in the btree model. While individual operations (find, insert, remove_from) are faster for the btree than they are for the avl tree, remove usually requires a find operation, while in the AVL tree model the element itself suffices. Some clever changes actually caused an overall speedup in metaslab loading; we use approximately 40% less cpu to load metaslabs in our tests on Illumos. Another memory and performance optimization was achieved by changing what is stored in the size-sorted trees. When a disk is heavily fragmented, the df algorithm used by default in ZFS will almost always find a number of small regions in its initial cursor-based search; it will usually only fall back to the size-sorted tree to find larger regions. If we increase the size of the cursor-based search slightly, and don't store segments that are smaller than a tunable size floor in the size-sorted tree, we can further cut memory usage down to below 20% of what the AVL trees store. This also results in further reductions in CPU time spent loading metaslabs. The 16KiB size floor was chosen because it results in substantial memory usage reduction while not usually resulting in situations where we can't find an appropriate chunk with the cursor and are forced to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree. In addition, even if we do have to use an oversized chunk from the size-sorted tree, the chunk would be too small to use for ZIL allocations, so it isn't as big of a loss as it might otherwise be. And often, more small allocations will follow the initial one, and the cursor search will now find the remainder of the chunk we didn't use all of and use it for subsequent allocations. Practical testing has shown little or no change in fragmentation as a result of this change. If the size-sorted tree becomes empty while the offset sorted one still has entries, it will load all the entries from the offset sorted tree and disregard the size floor until it is unloaded again. This operation occurs rarely with the default setting, only on incredibly thoroughly fragmented pools. There are some other small changes to zdb to teach it to handle btrees, but nothing major.
Updated by Dan McDonald over 2 years ago
As presented at http://open-zfs.org/wiki/OpenZFS_Developer_Summit_2019 (Metaslab Allocation Performance).
Updated by Electric Monk over 2 years ago
- Status changed from New to Closed
- % Done changed from 80 to 100
commit 4d7988d6050abba5c1ff60e7fd196e95c22e20f4 Author: Paul Dagnelie <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 2019-12-06T12:47:33.000Z 11971 Reduce loaded range tree memory usage Portions contributed by: Jerry Jelinek <email@example.com> Reviewed by: George Wilson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reviewed by: Matt Ahrens <email@example.com> Reviewed by: Sebastien Roy firstname.lastname@example.org Reviewed by: Igor Kozhukhov <email@example.com> Reviewed by: Brian Behlendorf <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reviewed by: Kody Kantor <email@example.com> Reviewed by: Andy Fiddaman <firstname.lastname@example.org> Approved by: Dan McDonald <email@example.com>