linux-kernel - Re: Slow file transfer speeds with CFQ IO scheduler in some cases

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: <20081125112558.GA16422@localhost>
Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:25:58 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <wfg@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	"Vitaly V. Bursov" <vitalyb@...enet.dn.ua>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Slow file transfer speeds with CFQ IO scheduler in some cases

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 02:02:45PM +0300, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
>
>
> Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:54:39AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 13 2008, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> //Sorry for being late. 
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 08:02:28PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I already talked about this with Jeff on irc, but I guess should post it
>>>>> here as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> nfsd aside (which does seem to have some different behaviour skewing the
>>>>> results), the original patch came about because dump(8) has a really
>>>>> stupid design that offloads IO to a number of processes. This basically
>>>>> makes fairly sequential IO more random with CFQ, since each process gets
>>>>> its own io context. My feeling is that we should fix dump instead of
>>>>> introducing a fair bit of complexity (and slowdown) in CFQ. I'm not
>>>>> aware of any other good programs out there that would do something
>>>>> similar, so I don't think there's a lot of merrit to spending cycles on
>>>>> detecting cooperating processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff will take a look at fixing dump instead, and I may have promised
>>>>> him that santa will bring him something nice this year if he does (since
>>>>> I'm sure it'll be painful on the eyes).
>>>> This could also be fixed at the VFS readahead level.
>>>>
>>>> In fact I've seen many kinds of interleaved accesses:
>>>> - concurrently reading 40 files that are in fact hard links of one single file
>>>> - a backup tool that splits a big file into 8k chunks, and serve the
>>>>   {1, 3, 5, 7, ...} chunks in one process and the {0, 2, 4, 6, ...}
>>>>   chunks in another one
>>>> - a pool of NFSDs randomly serving some originally sequential read 
>>>> requests - now dump(8) seems to have some similar problem.
>>>>
>>>> In summary there have been all kinds of efforts on trying to
>>>> parallelize I/O tasks, but unfortunately they can easily screw up the
>>>> sequential pattern. It may not be easily fixable for many of them.
>>>>
>>>> It is however possible to detect most of these patterns at the
>>>> readahead layer and restore sequential I/Os, before they propagate
>>>> into the block layer and hurt performance.
>>>>
>>>> Vitaly, if that's what you need, I can try to prepare a patch for
>>>> testing out.
>>> It's not easy. To really fix it, you have to get that sequential RA
>>> pattern from just the single process. As soon as you spread the IO
>>> between processes (eg N-1 aren't just getting cache hits), then you may
>>> run into trouble on the IO scheduler side.
>>
>> Yes, it's not easy(or possible) to tell from file->f_ra all those
>> cooperative processes working on the same sequential stream, since
>> they will have different file->f_ra instances. In the case of NFSD,
>> the file->f_ra may well be all zeros.
>>
>> Another scheme is to detect the sequential pattern via looking up
>> the page cache, which provides one single and consistent view of the
>> pages recently accessed. That makes sequential detection possible.
>>
>> The cost will be one extra page cache lookup per random read.
>> If it's not acceptable, the corresponding code could be disabled
>> by default. 
>
> I think, this should be the best and the simplest way to go. Since in  
> most case data from the cache should be later copied to user, one more  
> page cache lookup should be negligible.

After the initial proposal, two merits come to my mind to implement
cooperative sequential I/O detection in the readahead code:

1) readahead can make larger(hence more efficient) I/O requests
2) the page cache lookup trick eliminates the overheads of extra rbtrees.

So I would definitely like to try it out :-)

Thank you,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/