[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130118011851.GM6426@blackbox.djwong.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:18:51 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, lucho@...kov.net, jack@...e.cz, ericvh@...il.com,
tytso@....edu, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, rminnich@...dia.gov,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, neilb@...e.de, david@...morbit.com,
gnehzuil.liu@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, bharrosh@...asas.com, jlayton@...ba.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.4 0/3] mm/fs: Remove unnecessary waiting for stable
pages
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:43:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:49:02 -0800 "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The problem back in 2001 was that we held lock_page() across the
> > > duration of page writeback, so if another thread came in and tried to
> > > dirty the page, it would block on lock_page() until IO completion. I
> > > can't remember whether writeback would also block read(). Maybe it did,
> > > in which case the effects of this patchset won't be as dramatic as were
> > > the effects of splitting PG_lock into PG_lock and PG_writeback.
> >
> > Now that you've stirred my memory, I /do/ dimly recall that Linux waited for
> > writeback back in the old days. At least we'll be back to that.
That was a thinko. "...we'll be back to 2.6.39." is what I meant.
> Not really. 2.4 did writeback by walking a standalone list of
> buffer_heads, without locking their containing page. I removed all
> that and did writeback of the page instead. That immediately caused
> this problem, because the 2.4 writepage held lock_page() across
> writeout. So I changed that to drop lock_page() immediately after
> submission and added PG_writeback to flag the under-writeback state.
> The second change went in pretty much immediately - all within the
> same 2.5.x release, probably.
>
> > As a side note, the average latency of a write to a non-DIF disk dropped down
> > to nearly nothing.
>
> Some hard numbers in the changelog would be nice. Did you try dbench-on-ext2?
Yes, here's the result of dbench on ext2:
3.8.0-rc3:
Operation Count AvgLat MaxLat
----------------------------------------
WriteX 109347 0.028 59.817
ReadX 347180 0.004 3.391
Flush 15514 29.828 287.283
Throughput 57.429 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=287.290 ms
3.8.0-rc3 + patches:
WriteX 105556 0.029 4.273
ReadX 335004 0.005 4.112
Flush 14982 30.540 298.634
Throughput 55.4496 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=298.650 ms
As you can see, for ext2 the maximum write latency decreases from ~60ms on a
laptop hard disk to ~4ms. I'm not sure why the flush latencies increase,
though I suspect that being able to dirty pages faster gives the flusher more
work to do.
Here's what you get on ext4:
3.8.0-rc3:
WriteX 85624 0.152 33.078
ReadX 272090 0.010 61.210
Flush 12129 36.219 168.260
Throughput 44.8618 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=168.276 ms
3.8.0-rc3 + patches:
WriteX 86082 0.141 30.928
ReadX 273358 0.010 36.124
Flush 12214 34.800 165.689
Throughput 44.9941 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=165.722 ms
Here the average write latency goes down, and all maximum latencies drop too.
Just for kicks, here's XFS:
3.8.0-rc3:
WriteX 125739 0.028 104.343
ReadX 399070 0.005 4.115
Flush 17851 25.004 131.390
Throughput 66.0024 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=131.406 ms
3.8.0-rc3 + patches:
WriteX 123529 0.028 6.299
ReadX 392434 0.005 4.287
Flush 17549 25.120 188.687
Throughput 64.9113 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=188.704 ms
Hey look, dramatically lower maximum latencies for writes, though flushes seem
slower.
...and btrfs, just to round it out:
3.8.0-rc3:
WriteX 67122 0.083 82.355
ReadX 212719 0.005 2.828
Flush 9547 47.561 147.418
Throughput 35.3391 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=147.433 ms
3.8.0-rc3 + patches:
WriteX 64898 0.101 71.631
ReadX 206673 0.005 7.123
Flush 9190 47.963 219.034
Throughput 34.0795 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=219.044 ms
Same kinds of results here, though the increase in max read latency is a little
troubling.
> > > Do we generate nice kernel messages (at mount or device-probe time)
> > > which will permit people to work out which strategy their device/fs is
> > > using?
> >
> > No. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/*/stable_pages_required will tell you
> > stable pages are on or not, but so far only ext3 uses snapshots and the rest
> > just wait. Do you think a printk would be useful?
>
> Nope, if we can query the mode under /sys then that should be sufficient.
Ok.
--D
--
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