linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size

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: <20100225123755.GB9077@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:37:55 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Akshat Aranya <aaranya+fsdevel@...il.com>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 07:18:26PM +0800, Akshat Aranya wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >> It sounds silly to have
> >>
> >>         client_readahead_size > server_readahead_size
> >
> > I don't think it is  - the client readahead has to take into account
> > the network latency as well as the server latency. e.g. a network
> > with a high bandwidth but high latency is going to need much more
> > client side readahead than a high bandwidth, low latency network to
> > get the same throughput. Hence it is not uncommon to see larger
> > readahead windows on network clients than for local disk access.
> >
> > Also, the NFS server may not even be able to detect sequential IO
> > patterns because of the combined access patterns from the clients,
> > and so the only effective readahead might be what the clients
> > issue....
> >
> 
> In my experiments, I have observed that the server-side readahead
> shuts off rather quickly even with a single client because the client
> readahead causes multiple pending read RPCs on the server which are
> then serviced in random order and the pattern observed by the
> underlying file system is non-sequential.  In our file system, we had
> to override what the VFS thought was a random workload and continue to
> do readahead anyway.

What's the server side kernel version, plus client/server side
readahead size? I'd expect the context readahead to handle it well.

With the patchset in <http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/23/376>, you can
actually see the readahead details:

        # echo 1 > /debug/tracing/events/readahead/enable
        # cp test-file /dev/null
        # cat /debug/tracing/trace  # trimmed output
        readahead-initial(dev=0:15, ino=100177, req=0+2, ra=0+4-2, async=0) = 4
        readahead-subsequent(dev=0:15, ino=100177, req=2+2, ra=4+8-8, async=1) = 8
        readahead-subsequent(dev=0:15, ino=100177, req=4+2, ra=12+16-16, async=1) = 16
        readahead-subsequent(dev=0:15, ino=100177, req=12+2, ra=28+32-32, async=1) = 32
        readahead-subsequent(dev=0:15, ino=100177, req=28+2, ra=60+60-60, async=1) = 24
        readahead-subsequent(dev=0:15, ino=100177, req=60+2, ra=120+60-60, async=1) = 0

And I've actually verified the NFS case with the help of such traces
long ago.  When client_readahead_size <= server_readahead_size, the
readahead requests may look a bit random at first, and then will
quickly turn into a perfect series of sequential context readaheads.

Thanks,
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/