Message-ID: <4CCC6DA2.9010409@hp.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:10:26 -0400
From:	Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@...com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 0/6] ext4: use the bio layer directly

On 10/23/2010 04:40 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> This set of patches passes xfstests for both 1k and 4k block sizes.  For
> streaming I/O writes, it reduces the number of block I/O queue
> submissions by a factor of 1024 in the ideal case.  (i.e., instead of
> submitting 4k requests at a time, we can now submit up to 512k writes at
> a time, a 128 factor of improvement.)
>
> Lockstat measurements by Eric Whitney show that the block I/O request
> queue lock is the top cause of scalability problems in ext4:
>
> 	http://free.linux.hp.com/~enw/ext4/2.6.35/
>
> This patch should resolve these issues, as well as reducing ext4's CPU
> overhead for large buffered streaming writes by a significant amount.
>
> 	     	   	    	      	     - Ted
>
> P.S.  In a recent e-mail to me, akpm commented that it was a little sad
> that most modern filesystems don't like the core functions offered by
> the VFS and "go it alone".  I'm of the strong belief that the fact that
> ext4 was using as much of the "core functions" as it did was responsible
> for why we lagged some of the other modern file systems on the FFSB
> benchmark scores.  I wonder if it might be useful to consider taking
> parts of fs/ext4/page-io.c and trying to make a higher level interface
> that could be easily adopted by other basic filesytstems to improve
> their performance.
>
> To play devil's advocate for a moment, the fact that btrfs has special
> needs because of its fs-level snapshots probably rules it out, and I'm
> not sure this is something that would ever be of interest to XFS, since
> they have something much more sophisticated.  And perhaps it doesn't
> matter that much whether filesystems that exist primarily for
> compatibility (hfs, vfat, etc.) need to have high
> performance/scalability characteristics.
>
> On the other hand, one nice thing about the fs/ext4/page-io.c interface
> is that it should be relatively easy to take something which calls
> block_write_full_page(), and change it to call what is today named
> ext4_bio_write_page().  All it needs to do is pass a ext4_io_submit
> structure to successive calls to ext4_bio_write_page(), and then call
> (what today is named) ext4_io_submit() when it is done.  So minimal
> changes to client file system code, and hopefully impressive
> improvements in performance.
>
> Just a thought....
>
>
> Theodore Ts'o (6):
>    ext4: call mpage_da_submit_io() from mpage_da_map_blocks()
>    ext4: simplify ext4_writepage()
>    ext4: inline ext4_writepage() into mpage_da_submit_io()
>    ext4: inline walk_page_buffers() into mpage_da_submit_io
>    ext4: move mpage_put_bnr_to_bhs()'s functionality to
>      mpage_da_submit_io()
>    ext4: use bio layer instead of buffer layer in mpage_da_submit_io
>
>   fs/ext4/Makefile  |    2 +-
>   fs/ext4/ext4.h    |   36 +++++-
>   fs/ext4/extents.c |    4 +-
>   fs/ext4/inode.c   |  432 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------------------
>   fs/ext4/page-io.c |  426 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   fs/ext4/super.c   |    8 +-
>   6 files changed, 624 insertions(+), 284 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 fs/ext4/page-io.c
>
> --
> 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


My 48 core test results for these patches as applied to 2.6.36-rc6 can 
be found at:

http://free.linux.hp.com/~enw/ext4/2.6.36-rc6

The Boxacle large_file_creates workload showed a large and consistent 
scalability improvement with these patches on ext4 filesystems both with 
and without a journal.  (large_file_creates is effectively a sequential 
I/O write workload in this case.)  The random_writes and mail_server 
workloads benefited as well, but to a much smaller degree.

Unmodified 2.6.36-rc6 ext4, ext4 without a journal, ext3, and xfs data 
are also at that URL for comparison.  In addition, I've supplied lock 
stats and more detailed performance data for reference.

The storage system used for this work differed from that used in earlier 
experiments.  It delivered much better random I/O throughput, allowing 
us to avoid becoming as thoroughly disk-bound as in the earlier work.

The data were taken on 2.6.36-rc6 because that's where Ted was 
developing the patches.  They've since gone into 2.6.37.

Thanks, Ted!
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists