Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 11:07:21 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
        Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>,
        Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ext4: Fix performance regression with mballoc

On Thu 25-08-22 23:19:48, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 04:13:38PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 24-08-22 12:40:10, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Hi Stefan!
> > > 
> > > On Wed 24-08-22 12:17:14, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > > Am 23.08.22 um 22:15 schrieb Jan Kara:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > 
> > > > > So I have implemented mballoc improvements to avoid spreading allocations
> > > > > even with mb_optimize_scan=1. It fixes the performance regression I was able
> > > > > to reproduce with reaim on my test machine:
> > > > > 
> > > > >                       mb_optimize_scan=0     mb_optimize_scan=1     patched
> > > > > Hmean     disk-1       2076.12 (   0.00%)     2099.37 (   1.12%)     2032.52 (  -2.10%)
> > > > > Hmean     disk-41     92481.20 (   0.00%)    83787.47 *  -9.40%*    90308.37 (  -2.35%)
> > > > > Hmean     disk-81    155073.39 (   0.00%)   135527.05 * -12.60%*   154285.71 (  -0.51%)
> > > > > Hmean     disk-121   185109.64 (   0.00%)   166284.93 * -10.17%*   185298.62 (   0.10%)
> > > > > Hmean     disk-161   229890.53 (   0.00%)   207563.39 *  -9.71%*   232883.32 *   1.30%*
> > > > > Hmean     disk-201   223333.33 (   0.00%)   203235.59 *  -9.00%*   221446.93 (  -0.84%)
> > > > > Hmean     disk-241   235735.25 (   0.00%)   217705.51 *  -7.65%*   239483.27 *   1.59%*
> > > > > Hmean     disk-281   266772.15 (   0.00%)   241132.72 *  -9.61%*   263108.62 (  -1.37%)
> > > > > Hmean     disk-321   265435.50 (   0.00%)   245412.84 *  -7.54%*   267277.27 (   0.69%)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stefan, can you please test whether these patches fix the problem for you as
> > > > > well? Comments & review welcome.
> > > > 
> > > > i tested the whole series against 5.19 and 6.0.0-rc2. In both cases the
> > > > update process succeed which is a improvement, but the download + unpack
> > > > duration ( ~ 7 minutes ) is not as good as with mb_optimize_scan=0 ( ~ 1
> > > > minute ).
> > > 
> > > OK, thanks for testing! I'll try to check specifically untar whether I can
> > > still see some differences in the IO pattern on my test machine.
> > 
> > I have created the same tar archive as you've referenced (files with same
> > number of blocks) and looked at where blocks get allocated with
> > mb_optimize_scan=0 and with mb_optimize_scan=1 + my patches. And the
> > resulting IO pattern looks practically the same on my test machine. In
> > particular in both cases files get allocated only in 6 groups, if I look
> > at the number of erase blocks that are expected to be touched by file data
> > (for various erase block sizes from 512k to 4MB) I get practically same
> > numbers for both cases.
> > 
> > Ojaswin, I think you've also mentioned you were able to reproduce the issue
> > in your setup? Are you still able to reproduce it with the patched kernel?
> > Can you help debugging while Stefan is away?
> > 
> >                 Honza
> Hi Jan,
> 
> So I ran some more tests on v6.0-rc2 kernel with and without your patches and
> here are the details:
> 
> Workload:-
>   time tar -xf rpi-firmware.tar -C ./test
>   time sync
> 
> System details:
>   - Rpi 3b+ w/ 8G memory card (~4G free)
>   - tar is ~120MB compressed

Hum, maybe the difference is that I've tried with somewhat larger (20G) and
otherwise empty filesystem...

> And here is the output of time command for various tests. Since some of them
> take some time to complete, I ran them only 2 3 times each so the numbers might
> vary but they are indicative of the issue.
> 
> v6.0-rc2 (Without patches)
> 
> mb_optimize_scan = 0
> 
> **tar**
> real    1m39.574s
> user    0m10.311s
> sys     0m2.761s  
> 
> **sync**
> real    0m22.269s
> user    0m0.001s
> sys     0m0.005s
> 
> mb_optimize_scan = 1
> 
> **tar**
> real    21m25.288s
> user    0m9.607
> sys     0m3.026
> 
> **sync**
> real    1m23.402s
> user    0m0.005s
> sys     0m0.000s
> 
> v6.0-rc2 (With patches)
> 
> mb_optimize_scan = 0
> 
> * similar to unpatched (~1 to 2mins) *
> 
> mb_optimize_scan = 1
> 
> **tar**
> real    5m7.858s
> user    0m11.008s
> sys     0m2.739s
> 
> **sync**
> real    6m7.308s
> user    0m0.003s
> sys     0m0.001s
> 
> At this point, I'm pretty confident that it is the untar operation that is
> having most of the regression and no other download/delete operations in
> rpi-update are behind the delay. Further, it does seem like your patches
> improve the performance but, from my tests, we are still not close to the
> mb_optimize_scan=0 numbers.

Yes, thanks for the tests!

> I'm going to spend some more time trying to collect the perfs and which block 
> group the allocations are happening during the untar to see if we can get a better
> idea from that data. Let me know if you'd want me to collect anything else.
> 
> PS: One question, to find the blocks groups being used I'm planning to take
> the dumpe2fs output before and after untar and then see the groups where free blocks
> changed (since there is nothing much running on Pi i assume this should give us
> a rough idea of allocation pattern of untar), just wanted to check if there's a
> better way to get this data.

I have used 'find <target-dir> -exec filefrag -v {} \;' to get block
numbers of files. That gets you better insight than plain dumpe2fs
numbers...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

Powered by blists - more mailing lists