| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:05:42 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <wfg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
"Vitaly V. Bursov" <vitalyb@...enet.dn.ua>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Slow file transfer speeds with CFQ IO scheduler in some cases
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:01:40PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> Wu Fengguang, on 02/13/2009 04:57 AM wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:35:18PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>>> Sorry for such a huge delay. There were many other activities I had
>>> to do before + I had to be sure I didn't miss anything.
>>>
>>> We didn't use NFS, we used SCST (http://scst.sourceforge.net) with
>>> iSCSI-SCST target driver. It has similar to NFS architecture, where N
>>> threads (N=5 in this case) handle IO from remote initiators
>>> (clients) coming from wire using iSCSI protocol. In addition, SCST
>>> has patch called export_alloc_io_context (see
>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/10/282), which allows for the IO threads
>>> queue IO using single IO context, so we can see if context RA can
>>> replace grouping IO threads in single IO context.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the results are negative. We find neither any
>>> advantages of context RA over current RA implementation, nor
>>> possibility for context RA to replace grouping IO threads in single
>>> IO context.
>>>
>>> Setup on the target (server) was the following. 2 SATA drives grouped
>>> in md RAID-0 with average local read throughput ~120MB/s ("dd
>>> if=/dev/zero of=/dev/md0 bs=1M count=20000" outputs "20971520000
>>> bytes (21 GB) copied, 177,742 s, 118 MB/s"). The md device was
>>> partitioned on 3 partitions. The first partition was 10% of space in
>>> the beginning of the device, the last partition was 10% of space in
>>> the end of the device, the middle one was the rest in the middle of
>>> the space them. Then the first and the last partitions were exported
>>> to the initiator (client). They were /dev/sdb and /dev/sdc on it
>>> correspondingly.
>>
>> Vladislav, Thank you for the benchmarks! I'm very interested in
>> optimizing your workload and figuring out what happens underneath.
>>
>> Are the client and server two standalone boxes connected by GBE?
>>
>> When you set readahead sizes in the benchmarks, you are setting them
>> in the server side? I.e. "linux-4dtq" is the SCST server? What's the
>> client side readahead size?
>>
>> It would help a lot to debug readahead if you can provide the
>> server side readahead stats and trace log for the worst case.
>> This will automatically answer the above questions as well as disclose
>> the micro-behavior of readahead:
>>
>> mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug
>>
>> echo > /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/stats # reset counters
>> # do benchmark
>> cat /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/stats
>>
>> echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/trace_enable
>> # do micro-benchmark, i.e. run the same benchmark for a short time
>> echo 0 > /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/trace_enable
>> dmesg
>>
>> The above readahead trace should help find out how the client side
>> sequential reads convert into server side random reads, and how we can
>> prevent that.
>
> See attached. Could you comment the logs, please, so I will also be able
> to read them in the future?
Vladislav, thank you for the logs!
The printk format for the following lines is:
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "readahead-%s(pid=%d(%s), dev=%02x:%02x(%s), "
+ "ino=%lu(%s), req=%lu+%lu, ra=%lu+%d-%d, async=%d) = %d\n",
+ ra_pattern_names[pattern],
+ current->pid, current->comm,
+ MAJOR(mapping->host->i_sb->s_dev),
+ MINOR(mapping->host->i_sb->s_dev),
+ mapping->host->i_sb->s_id,
+ mapping->host->i_ino,
+ filp->f_path.dentry->d_name.name,
+ offset, req_size,
+ ra->start, ra->size, ra->async_size,
+ async,
+ actual);
readahead-marker(pid=3838(vdiskd3_3), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10596+1, ra=10628+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3837(vdiskd3_2), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10628+1, ra=10660+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3835(vdiskd3_0), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10660+1, ra=10692+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3839(vdiskd3_4), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10692+1, ra=10724+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3837(vdiskd3_2), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10724+1, ra=10756+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3838(vdiskd3_3), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10756+1, ra=10788+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3839(vdiskd3_4), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10788+1, ra=10820+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3835(vdiskd3_0), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10820+1, ra=10852+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3838(vdiskd3_3), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10852+1, ra=10884+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3837(vdiskd3_2), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10884+1, ra=10916+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3839(vdiskd3_4), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10916+1, ra=10948+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3836(vdiskd3_1), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10948+1, ra=10980+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3837(vdiskd3_2), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=10980+1, ra=11012+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3838(vdiskd3_3), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11012+1, ra=11044+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3836(vdiskd3_1), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11044+1, ra=11076+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-subsequent(pid=3836(vdiskd3_1), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11076+1, ra=11108+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3835(vdiskd3_0), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11108+1, ra=11140+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-subsequent(pid=3835(vdiskd3_0), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11140+1, ra=11172+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3839(vdiskd3_4), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11172+1, ra=11204+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-subsequent(pid=3839(vdiskd3_4), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11204+1, ra=11236+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3837(vdiskd3_2), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11236+1, ra=11268+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-subsequent(pid=3837(vdiskd3_2), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11268+1, ra=11300+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3835(vdiskd3_0), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11300+1, ra=11332+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-subsequent(pid=3835(vdiskd3_0), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11332+1, ra=11364+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-marker(pid=3839(vdiskd3_4), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11364+1, ra=11396+32-32, async=1) = 32
readahead-subsequent(pid=3839(vdiskd3_4), dev=00:02(bdev), ino=0(raid-1st), req=11396+1, ra=11428+32-32, async=1) = 32
The above trace shows that the readahead logic is working pretty well,
however the max readahead size(32 pages) is way too small. This can
also be confirmed in the following table, where the average readahead
request size/async_size and actual readahead I/O size are all 30.
linux-4dtq:/ # cat /sys/kernel/debug/readahead/stats
pattern count sync_count eof_count size async_size actual
none 0 0 0 0 0 0
initial0 71 71 41 4 3 2
initial 23 23 0 4 3 4
subsequent 3845 4 21 31 31 31
marker 4222 0 1 31 31 31
trail 0 0 0 0 0 0
oversize 0 0 0 0 0 0
reverse 0 0 0 0 0 0
stride 0 0 0 0 0 0
thrash 0 0 0 0 0 0
mmap 135 135 15 32 0 17
fadvise 180 180 180 0 0 1
random 23 23 2 1 0 1
all 8499 436 260 30 30 30
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I suspect that your main performance problem comes from the small read/readahead size.
If larger values are used, even the vanilla 2.6.27 kernel will perform well.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists