linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix 50% disk write performance regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:31:08 -0400
From:	Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	tytso@....edu, adilger@....com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	bill.fink@...a.gov
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix 50% disk write performance regression

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Eric Sandeen wrote:

> Bill Fink wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > 
> >> Can you give this a shot?
> >>
> >> The first hunk is, I think, the biggest problem.  Even if
> >> we get the max number of pages we need, we keep scanning forward
> >> until "done" without doing any more actual, useful work.
> >>
> >> The 2nd hunk is an oddity, some places assign nr_to_write
> >> to LONG_MAX, and we get here and multiply -that- by 8... giving
> >> us "-8" for nr_to_write, that can't help things when we
> >> do later comparisons on that number...
> >>
> >> I also see us asking to find pages starting at "idx" and
> >> the first dirty page we find is well ahead of that,
> >> I'm not sure if that's indicative of a problem or not.
> >>
> >> Anyway, want to give this a shot, in place of the patch you sent,
> >> and see how it fares compared to stock and/or with your patch?
> >>
> >> It's build-and-sanity tested but not really performance tested here.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Eric
> > 
> > Great!  It looks like that does the trick.
> > 
> > 2.6.35 + your patch:
> > 
> > i7test7% dd if=/dev/zero of=/i7raid/bill/testfile1 bs=1M count=32768
> > 32768+0 records in
> > 32768+0 records out
> > 34359738368 bytes (34 GB) copied, 50.6702 s, 678 MB/s
> > 
> > That's the same performance as with my patch, and pretty darn
> > close to the original 2.6.31 performance.
> 
> hah, that's good esp. considering my followup email that found
> what I think is a problem with my patch.  ;)
> 
> What happens if you change:
> 
> 	if (!range_cyclic && range_whole && wbc->nr_to_write != LONG_MAX)
> 		desired_nr_to_write = wbc->nr_to_write * 8;
>   	else
>   		desired_nr_to_write = ext4_num_dirty_pages(inode, index,
> 
> to:
> 
>         if (!range_cyclic && range_whole) {
>                 if (wbc->nr_to_write != LONG_MAX)
>                         desired_nr_to_write = wbc->nr_to_write * 8;
>                 else
>                         desired_nr_to_write = wbc->nr_to_write;
>         } else
>   		desired_nr_to_write = ext4_num_dirty_pages(inode, index,
> 
> and see how that fares?  I think that makes a little more sense, if we
> got there with LONG_MAX that means "write everything" and there's no need
> to bump it up or to go counting pages.  It may not make any real difference.

That's also fine.

	-Bill



> But I'm seeing really weird behavior in writeback, it starts out nicely
> writing 32768 pages at a time, and then goes all wonky, revisiting pages
> it's already done and doing IO in little chunks.   This is going to take
> some staring I think.
> 
> -Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html