linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix Readahead stalling by plugged device queues

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]

Date:	Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:29:13 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Ronald <intercommit@...il.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...il.com>,
	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Fix Readahead stalling by plugged device queues

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 05:58:08PM +0800, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:31:46PM +0800, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> >>
> >> Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Christian, did you notice this commit for 2.6.33?
> >>>
> >>> commit 65a80b4c61f5b5f6eb0f5669c8fb120893bfb388
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> I didn't see that particular one, due to the fact that whatever the 
> >> result is it needs to work .32
> >>
> >> Anyway I'll test it tomorrow and if that already accepted one fixes my 
> >> issue as well I'll recommend distros older than 2.6.33 picking that one 
> >> up in their on top patches.
> > 
> > OK, thanks!
> 
> That patch fixes my issue completely and is as we discussed less 
> aggressive which is fine - thanks for pointing it out - Now I have 
> something already upstream accepted to fix the issue, thats much better!

That's great news, it works beyond my expectation.. :)

> >>> It should at least improve performance between .32 and .33, because
> >>> once two readahead requests are merged into one single IO request,
> >>> the PageUptodate() will be true at next readahead, and hence
> >>> blk_run_backing_dev() get called to break out of the suboptimal
> >>> situation.
> >> As you saw from my blktrace thats already the case without that patch.
> >> Once the second readahead comes in and merged it gets unplugged in 
> >> 2.6.32 too - but still that is bad behavior as it denies my things like 
> >> 68% throughput improvement :-).
> > 
> > I mean, when readahead windows A and B are submitted in one IO --
> > let's call it AB -- commit 65a80b4c61 will explicitly unplug on doing
> > readahead C.  While in your trace, the unplug appears on AB.
> > 
> > The 68% improvement is very impressive. Wondering if commit 65a80b4c61
> > (the _conditional_ unplug) can achieve the same level of improvement :)
> 
> Yep it can !
> We can post update the patch description to bigger numbers :-)

Andrew/Greg, shall we push the patch to .32 stable?

That would give us an opportunity to change the patch description ;)

> >>> Your patch does reduce the possible readahead submit latency to 0.
> >> yeah and I think/hope that is fine, because as I stated:
> >> - low utilized disk -> not an issue
> >> - high utilized disk -> unplug is an noop
> >>
> >> At least personally I consider a case where merging of a readahead 
> >> window with anything except its own sibling very rare - and therefore 
> >> fair to unplug after and RA is submitted.
> > 
> > They are reasonable assumptions. However I'm not sure if this
> > unconditional unplug will defeat CFQ's anticipatory logic -- if there
> > are any. You know commit 65a80b4c61 is more about a *defensive*
> > protection against the rare case that two readahead windows get
> > merged.
> > 
> >>> Is your workload a simple dd on a single disk? If so, it sounds like
> >>> something illogical hidden in the block layer.
> >> It might still be illogical hidden as e.g. 2.6.27 unplugged after the 
> >> first readahead as well :-)
> >> But no my load is iozone running with different numbers of processes 
> >> with one disk per process.
> >> That neatly resembles e.g. nightly backup jobs which tend to take longer 
> >> and longer in all time increasing customer scenarios. Such an 
> >> improvement might banish the backups back to the night were they belong :-)
> > 
> > Exactly one process per disk? Are they doing sequential reads or more
> > complicated access patterns?
> 
> Just sequential read where I see the win, but I also had sequential 
> write, and random read/write as well as some mixed stuff like dbench.
> It improved sequential read and did not impact the others which is fine.

Ah OK.

> Thank you for you quick replies!

You are welcome~

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/