Reduce latency effects of non-interactive I/O

Investigating influence of scrub (especially sequential) on random read
latency I've noticed that on some HDDs single 4KB read may take up to 4
seconds!  Deeper investigation shown that many HDDs heavily prioritize
sequential reads even when those are submitted with queue depth of 1.

This patch addresses the latency from two sides:
 - by using _min_active queue depths for non-interactive requests while
   the interactive request(s) are active and few requests after;
 - by throttling it further if no interactive requests has completed
   while configured amount of non-interactive did.

While there, I've also modified vdev_queue_class_to_issue() to give
more chances to schedule at least _min_active requests to the lowest
priorities.  It should reduce starvation if several non-interactive
processes are running same time with some interactive and I think should
make possible setting of zfs_vdev_max_active to as low as 1.

I've benchmarked this change with 4KB random reads from ZVOL with 16KB
block size on newly written non-fragmented pool.  On fragmented pool I
also saw improvements, but not so dramatic.  Below are log2 histograms
of the random read latency in milliseconds for different devices:

4 2x mirror vdevs of SATA HDD WDC WD20EFRX-68EUZN0 before:
0, 0, 2,  1,  12,  21,  19,  18, 10, 15, 17, 21
after:
0, 0, 0, 24, 101, 195, 419, 250, 47,  4,  0,  0
, that means maximum latency reduction from 2s to 500ms.

4 2x mirror vdevs of SATA HDD WDC WD80EFZX-68UW8N0 before:
0, 0,  2,  31,  38,  28,  18,  12, 17, 20, 24, 10, 3
after:
0, 0, 55, 247, 455, 470, 412, 181, 36,  0,  0,  0, 0
, i.e. from 4s to 250ms.

1 SAS HDD SEAGATE ST14000NM0048 before:
0,  0,  29,   70, 107,   45,  27, 1, 0, 0, 1, 4, 19
after:
1, 29, 681, 1261, 676, 1633,  67, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0,  0
, i.e. from 4s to 125ms.

1 SAS SSD SEAGATE XS3840TE70014 before (microseconds):
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,  70, 18343, 82548, 618
after:
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 283, 92351, 34844,  90

I've also measured scrub time during the test and on idle pools.  On
idle fragmented pool I've measured scrub getting few percent faster
due to use of QD3 instead of QD2 before.  On idle non-fragmented pool
I've measured no difference.  On busy non-fragmented pool I've measured
scrub time increase about 1.5-1.7x, while IOPS increase reached 5-9x.

Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Ahrens <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Ryan Moeller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Motin <[email protected]>
Sponsored-By: iXsystems, Inc.
Closes #11166 

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions