[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] IO accounting overhaul



Benoît Canet <benoit canet irqsave net> writes:

> The Monday 01 Sep 2014 à 11:52:00 (+0200), Markus Armbruster wrote :
>> Cc'ing libvirt following Stefan's lead.
>> 
>> Benoît Canet <benoit canet irqsave net> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I collected some items of a cloud provider wishlist regarding I/O accouting.
>> 
>> Feedback from real power-users, lovely!
>> 
>> > In a cloud I/O accouting can have 3 purpose: billing, helping the customers
>> > and doing metrology to help the cloud provider seeks hidden costs.
>> >
>> > I'll cover the two former topic in this mail because they are the
>> > most important
>> > business wize.
>> >
>> > 1) prefered place to collect billing IO accounting data:
>> > --------------------------------------------------------
>> > For billing purpose the collected data must be as close as
>> > possible to what the
>> > customer would see by using iostats in his vm.
>> 
>> Good point.
>> 
>> > The first conclusion we can draw is that the choice of collecting
>> > IO accouting
>> > data used for billing in the block devices models is right.
>> 
>> Slightly rephrasing: doing I/O accounting in the block device models is
>> right for billing.
>> 
>> There may be other uses for I/O accounting, with different preferences.
>> For instance, data on how exactly guest I/O gets translated to host I/O
>> as it flows through the nodes in the block graph could be useful.
>
> I think this is the third point that I named as metrology.
> Basically it boils down to "Where are the hidden IO costs of the QEMU
> block layer".

Understood.

>> Doesn't diminish the need for accurate billing information, of course.
>> 
>> > 2) what to do with occurences of rare events:
>> > ---------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Another point is that QEMU developpers agree that they don't know
>> > which policy
>> > to apply to some I/O accounting events.
>> > Must QEMU discard invalid I/O write IO or account them as done ?
>> > Must QEMU count a failed read I/O as done ?
>> >
>> > When discusting this with a cloud provider the following appears:
>> > these decisions
>> > are really specific to each cloud provider and QEMU should not
>> > implement them.
>> 
>> Good point, consistent with the old advice to avoid baking policy into
>> inappropriately low levels of the stack.
>> 
>> > The right thing to do is to add accouting counters to collect these events.
>> >
>> > Moreover these rare events are precious troubleshooting data so it's
>> > an additional
>> > reason not to toss them.
>> 
>> Another good point.
>> 
>> > 3) list of block I/O accouting metrics wished for billing and helping
>> > the customers
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Basic I/O accouting data will end up making the customers bills.
>> > Extra I/O accouting informations would be a precious help for the
>> > cloud provider
>> > to implement a monitoring panel like Amazon Cloudwatch.
>> 
>> These are the first two from your list of three purposes, i.e. the ones
>> you promised to cover here.
>> 
>> > Here is the list of counters and statitics I would like to help
>> > implement in QEMU.
>> >
>> > This is the most important part of the mail and the one I would like
>> > the community
>> > review the most.
>> >
>> > Once this list is settled I would proceed to implement the required
>> > infrastructure
>> > in QEMU before using it in the device models.
>> 
>> For context, let me recap how I/O accounting works now.
>> 
>> The BlockDriverState abstract data type (short: BDS) can hold the
>> following accounting data:
>> 
>>     uint64_t nr_bytes[BDRV_MAX_IOTYPE];
>>     uint64_t nr_ops[BDRV_MAX_IOTYPE];
>>     uint64_t total_time_ns[BDRV_MAX_IOTYPE];
>>     uint64_t wr_highest_sector;
>> 
>> where BDRV_MAX_IOTYPE enumerates read, write, flush.
>> 
>> wr_highest_sector is a high watermark updated by the block layer as it
>> writes sectors.
>> 
>> The other three are *not* touched by the block layer.  Instead, the
>> block layer provides a pair of functions for device models to update
>> them:
>> 
>>     void bdrv_acct_start(BlockDriverState *bs, BlockAcctCookie *cookie,
>>             int64_t bytes, enum BlockAcctType type);
>>     void bdrv_acct_done(BlockDriverState *bs, BlockAcctCookie *cookie);
>> 
>> bdrv_acct_start() initializes cookie for a read, write, or flush
>> operation of a certain size.  The size of a flush is always zero.
>> 
>> bdrv_acct_done() adds the operations to the BDS's accounting data.
>> total_time_ns is incremented by the time between _start() and _done().
>> 
>> You may call _start() without calling _done().  That's a feature.
>> Device models use it to avoid accounting some requests.
>> 
>> Device models are not supposed to mess with cookie directly, only
>> through these two functions.
>> 
>> Some device models implement accounting, some don't.  The ones that do
>> don't agree on how to count invalid guest requests (the ones not passed
>> to block layer) and failed requests (passed to block layer and failed
>> there).  It's a mess in part caused by us never writing down what
>> exactly device models are expected to do.
>> 
>> Accounting data is used by "query-blockstats", and nothing else.
>> 
>> Corollary: even though every BDS holds accounting data, only the ones in
>> "top" BDSes ever get used.  This is a common block layer blemish, and
>> we're working on cleaning it up.
>> 
>> If a device model doesn't implement accounting, query-blockstats lies.
>> Fortunately, its lies are pretty transparent (everything's zero) as long
>> as you don't do things like connecting a backend to a device model that
>> doesn't implement accounting after disconnecting it from a device model
>> that does.  Still, I'd welcome a more honest QMP interface.
>> 
>> For me, this accounting data belongs to the device model, not the BDS.
>> Naturally, the block device models should use common infrastructure.  I
>> guess they use the block layer only because it's obvious infrastructure
>> they share.  Clumsy design.
>> 
>> > /* volume of data transfered by the IOs */
>> > read_bytes
>> > write_bytes
>> 
>> This is nr_bytes[BDRV_ACCT_READ] and nr_bytes[BDRV_ACCT_WRITE].
>> 
>> nr_bytes[BDRV_ACCT_FLUSH] is always zero.
>> 
>> Should this count only actual I/O, i.e. accumulated size of successful
>> operations?
>> 
>> > /* operation count */
>> > read_ios
>> > write_ios
>> > flush_ios
>> >
>> > /* how many invalid IOs the guest submit */
>> > invalid_read_ios
>> > invalid_write_ios
>> > invalid_flush_ios
>> >
>> > /* how many io error happened */
>> > read_ios_error
>> > write_ios_error
>> > flush_ios_error
>> 
>> This is nr_ops[BDRV_ACCT_READ], nr_ops[BDRV_ACCT_WRITE],
>> nr_ops[BDRV_ACCT_FLUSH] split up into successful, invalid and failed.
>> 
>> > /* account the time passed doing IOs */
>> > total_read_time
>> > total_write_time
>> > total_flush_time
>> 
>> This is total_time_ns[BDRV_ACCT_READ], total_time_ns[BDRV_ACCT_WRITE],
>> total_time_ns[BDRV_ACCT_FLUSH].
>> 
>> I guess this should count both successful and failed I/O.  Could throw
>> in invalid, too, but it's probably too quick to matter.
>> 
>> Please specify the unit clearly.  Both total_FOO_time_ns or total_FOO_ns
>> would work for me.
>
> Yes _ns is fine for me too.
>
>> 
>> > /* since when the volume is iddle */
>> > qvolume_iddleness_time
>> 
>> "idle"
>> 
>> The obvious way to maintain this information with the current could
>> would be saving the value of get_clock() in bdrv_acct_done().
>> 
>> > /* the following would compute latecies for slices of 1 seconds then toss the
>> >  * result and start a new slice. A weighted sumation of the instant latencies
>> >  * could help to implement this.
>> >  */
>> > 1s_read_average_latency
>> > 1s_write_average_latency
>> > 1s_flush_average_latency
>> >
>> > /* the former three numbers could be used to further compute a 1
>> > minute slice value */
>> > 1m_read_average_latency
>> > 1m_write_average_latency
>> > 1m_flush_average_latency
>> >
>> > /* the former three numbers could be used to further compute a 1 hours
>> > slice value */
>> > 1h_read_average_latency
>> > 1h_write_average_latency
>> > 1h_flush_average_latency
>> 
>> This is something like "what we added to total_FOO_time in the last
>> completed 1s / 1m / 1h time slice divided by the number of additions".
>> Just another way to accumulate the same raw data, thus no worries.
>> 
>> > /* 1 second average number of requests in flight */
>> > 1s_read_queue_depth
>> > 1s_write_queue_depth
>> >
>> > /* 1 minute average number of requests in flight */
>> > 1m_read_queue_depth
>> > 1m_write_queue_depth
>> >
>> > /* 1 hours average number of requests in flight */
>> > 1h_read_queue_depth
>> > 1h_write_queue_depth
>> 
>> I guess this involves counting bdrv_acct_start() and bdrv_acct_done().
>> The "you need not call bdrv_acct_done()" feature may get in the way.
>> Solvable.
>> 
>> Permit me a short detour into the other use for I/O accounting I
>> mentioned: data on how exactly guest I/O gets translated to host I/O as
>> it flows through the nodes in the block graph.  Do you think this would
>> be pretty much the same data, just collected at different points?
>
> That something I would like to take care in a further sub project.

I'm asking now because it impacts where I'd prefer the shared
infrastructure to live.

> Optionally collecting the same data for each BDS of the graph.

If that's the case, keeping the shared infrastructure in the block layer
makes sense.

BDS member acct then holds I/O stats for the BDS.  We currently use it
for something else: I/O stats of the device model backed by this BDS.
That needs to move elsewhere.  Two places come to mind:

1. BlockBackend, when it's available (I resumed working on it last week
   for a bit).  Superficially attractive, because it's close to what we
   have now, but then we have to deal with what to do when the backend
   gets disconnected from its device model, then connected to another
   one.

2. The device models that actually implement I/O accounting.  Since
   query-blockstats names a backend rather than a device model, we need
   a BlockDevOps callback to fetch the stats.  Fetch fails when the
   callback is null.  Lets us distinguish "no stats yet" and "device
   model can't do stats", thus permits a QMP interface that doesn't lie.

Right now, I like (2) better.

>> > 4) Making this happen
>> > -------------------------
>> >
>> > Outscale want to make these IO stat happen and gave me the go to do whatever
>> > grunt is required to do so.
>> > That said we could collaborate on some part of the work.
>> 
>> Cool!
>> 
>> A quick stab at tasks:
>> 
>> * QMP interface, either a compatible extension of query-blockstats or a
>>   new one.
>
> I would like to extend query-blockstat in a first time but I also
> would like to postpone the QMP interface changes and just write the
> shared infrastructure and deploy it in the device models.

Implementing improved data collection need not wait for the QMP design.

>> * Rough idea on how to do the shared infrastructure.
>
> -API wize I think about adding
> bdrv_acct_invalid() and
> bdrv_acct_failed() and systematically issuing a bdrv_acct_start() asap.

Complication: partial success.  Example:

1. Guest requests a read of N sectors.

2. Device model calls
   bdrv_acct_start(s->bs, &req->acct, N * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, BDRV_ACCT_READ)

3. Device model examines the request, and deems it valid.

4. Device model passes it to the block layer.

5. Block layer does its thing, but for some reason only M < N sectors
   can be read.  Block layer returns M.

6. What's the device model to do now?  Both bdrv_acct_failed() and
   bdrv_acct_done() would be wrong.

   Should the device model account for a read of size M?  This ignores
   the partial failure.

   Should it split the read into a successful and a failed part for
   accounting purposes?  This miscounts the number of reads.

> -To calculate the averages I think about a global timer firing every seconds
> and iterating of the bds list to make the computations even when there is no
> IO activity. Is it acceptable to have a qemu_mutex by statitic structure ?

Let me try to sketch something simpler.  For brevity, I cover only a
single slice, but adding mroe is just more of the same.

Have an end-of-slice timestamp.

When accounting an operation, compare current time to end-of-slice (we
already get the current time to measure latency, so this is cheap).  If
end-of-slice is in the past, zero the slice's stats, and update
end-of-slice.

When something asks for stats, do the same, to avoid returning stale
slice stats.

>> * Implement (can be split up into several tasks if desired)
>
> First I would like to write a series implementing a
> backward-compatible API and get it
> merged.
>
> Then the deployment of the new API specifics in the devices models can
> be splitted/parallelized.

Works for me.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]