linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3 v5][RFC] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ

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: <x49mxulq4sn.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jun 2010 09:03:52 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	axboe@...nel.dk, vgoyal@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v5][RFC] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ

Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 05:34:59PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Running iozone with the fsync flag, or fs_mark, the performance of CFQ is
>> far worse than that of deadline for enterprise class storage when dealing
>> with file sizes of 8MB or less.  I used the following command line as a
>> representative test case:
>> 
>>   fs_mark -S 1 -D 10000 -N 100000 -d /mnt/test/fs_mark -s 65536 -t 1 -w 4096 -F
>> 
>> When run using the deadline I/O scheduler, an average of the first 5 numbers
>> will give you 448.4 files / second.  CFQ will yield only 106.7.  With
>> this patch series applied (and the two patches I sent yesterday), CFQ now
>> achieves 462.5 files / second.
>> 
>> This patch set is still an RFC.  I'd like to make it perform better when
>> there is a competing sequential reader present.  For now, I've addressed
>> the concerns voiced about the previous posting.
>
> What happened to the initial idea of just using the BIO_RW_META flag
> for log writes?  In the end log writes are the most important writes you
> have in a journaled filesystem, and they should not be effect to any
> kind of queue idling logic or other interruption.  Log I/O is usually
> very little (unless you use old XFS code with a worst-case directory
> manipulation workload), and very latency sensitive.

Vivek showed that starting firefox in the presence of a processing doing
fsyncs (using the RQ_META approach) took twice as long as without the
patch:
  http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/6/276

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/