[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4F6F8AC2-4E65-423E-8913-6F2399196849@dilger.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 12:29:50 -0600
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"Bean Huo (beanhuo)" <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
"beanhuo.linux@...gle.com" <beanhuo.linux@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] how to disable readahead
On Sep 12, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Thu 02-08-18 12:58:04, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:56:41PM +0000, Bean Huo (beanhuo) wrote:
>>>
>>> I am newbie on ext4, I tried the above method to disable readahead,
>>> echo 0 > /sys/block/<dev>/queue/read_ahead_kb Then I read by 128kB
>>> chunk size, ext4 will read the file by 4KB chunk size each
>>> time. that means ext4 splits 128KB into 32 4KB to read. That's not
>>> my expectation. Do you know how to still keep and let ext4 read by
>>> 128KB in case of disable readahead?
>>
>> Hmm... that's not my expectation as well, but I've replicated your
>> results. More interestingly, I tried the same experiment using XFS,
>> and it does the same thing. I used as my test workload:
>>
>> dd if=/mnt/test bs=128k count=32 | sum
>>
>> Used strace to verify that dd was in fact issuing 128k reads:
>>
>> read(0, "\377\253a)\307\10\230\6\360,,:\226Rq\204\343\2522&44\307\341\372\271\271/\224#?\346"..., 131072) = 131072
>> write(1, "\377\253a)\307\10\230\6\360,,:\226Rq\204\343\2522&44\307\341\372\271\271/\224#?\346"..., 131072) = 131072
>>
>> And then used btrace to monitor the I/O requests sent to the device:
>>
>> 252,4 0 413 0.077274997 14645 Q R 4408 + 8 [dd]
>> 252,4 2 77 0.077355648 5529 C R 4408 + 8 [0]
>> 252,4 0 414 0.077393725 14645 Q R 4416 + 8 [dd]
>> 252,4 2 78 0.077630722 5529 C R 4416 + 8 [0]
>> ...
>>
>> ... and indeed, the reads are being sent to the device in 4k chunks.
>> That's indeed surprising. I'd have to do some debugging with
>> tracepoints to see what requests are being issued from the
>> mm/filemap.c to the file system.
>
> And this is in fact expected. There are two basic ways how data can appear
> in page cache: ->readpage and ->readpages filesystem callbacks. The second
> one is what readahead (and only readahead) uses, the first one is used as a
> fallback when readahead fails for some reason. So if you disable readahead,
> you're left only with ->readpage call which does only one-page (4k) reads.
Even *with* readahead, why would we add the overhead of processing each page
separately instead of handling all pages in a single batch via readpages()?
Cheers, Andreas
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (874 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists