linux-ext4 - Re: ext4 data=writeback performs worse than data=ordered now

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]

Message-ID: <20111215013456.GB17920@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:34:56 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>, Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: ext4 data=writeback performs worse than data=ordered now

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 09:27:59AM +0800, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:00:10 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > > I found sometimes one disk hasn't any request inflight, but we can't
> > > send request to the disk, because the scsi host's resource (the queue
> > > depth) is used out, looks we send too many requests from other disks and
> > > leave some disks starved. The resource imbalance in scsi isn't a new
> > > problem, even 3.1 has such issue, so I'd think writeback introduces new
> > > imbalance between the 12 disks. In fact, if I limit disk's queue depth
> > > to 10, in this way the 12 disks will not impact each other in scsi
> > > layer, the performance regression fully disappears for both writeback
> > > and order mode.
> > 
> > I observe similar issue in MD. The default
> > 
> >         q->nr_requests = BLKDEV_MAX_RQ;
> > 
> > is too small for large arrays, and I end up doing
> > 
> >         echo 1280 > /sys/block/md0/queue/nr_requests
> > 
> > in my tests.
> 
> And you find this makes a difference?
> 
> That is very surprising because md devices don't use requests (and really use
> the 'queue' at all) and definitely don't make use of nr_requests.

Ah OK. Hope that I was wrong. I've just kicked off the tests to make sure.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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