Message-ID: <20110215111126.GD17313@quack.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:11:26 +0100
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:	op.q.liu@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
	jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: ext2 write performance regression from 2.6.32

  Hello,

On Tue 15-02-11 14:46:41, Feng Tang wrote:
> After some debugging, here is one possible root cause for the dd performance
> drop between 2.6.30 and 2.6.32 (33/34/35 as well): in .30 the dd is a pure
> sequential operation while in .32 it isn't, and the change is related to
> the introduction of per-pdi flush.
> 
> I used a laptop with SDHC controller and run a simple dd of a double RAM size
>  _file_ to a 1G SDHC card, the drop from .32 to .30 is about 30%, from roughly
> 10MB/s to 7MB/s
> 
> I'm not very familiar with .30/.32 code, and here is a simple analysis:
> 
> When dd to a big ext2 file, there are 2 types of metadata will be updated
> besides the file data:
> 1. The ext2 global info like group descriptors and block bitmaps, whose
>    buffer_header will be marked dirty in ext2_new_blocks()
> 2. The inode of the file under written, marked dirty in ext2_write/update_inode(),
>    which is called by write_inode() and in writeback path.
> 
> In 2.6.30, with old pdflush interface, during the dd, the writeback of the 2
> types of metadata will be triggered from wb_timer_fn() and dirty_balance_pages(),
> but they are always delayed in pdflush_operations() as the pdflush_list is
> empty. So that only the file data got be written back in a very smooth
> sequential mode. 
> 
> In 2.6.32, the writeback is per-bdi operation, every time the bdi for the sd
> card is called for flush, it will check and try to write back all the dirty
> pages, including both the metadata and data pages, so the previously sequential
> sd block access is periodically chimed in by the metadata block, which cause
> the performance drop. And if I ugly delayed the metadata writeback, the
> performance will be restored same as .30.
  Umm, interesting. 7 vs 10 MB/s is rather big difference. For non-rotating
media like is your SD card, I'd expect much less impact of IO randomness,
especially if we write in those 4 MB chunks. But we are probably hit by the
erase block size being big and thus FTL has to do a lot of work.

What might happen is that flusher thread competes with the process doing
writeback from balance_dirty_pages(). There are basically two dirty inodes
in the bdi in your test case - the file you write and the device inode. So
while one task flushes the file data pages, the other task has no other
choice but flush the device inode. But I'd expect this to happen with
pdflush as well. Can you send me raw block traces from both kernels so that
I can have a look? Thanks.

								Honza

> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Kyle liu <op.q.liu@...il.com>
> > Date: 2011/1/28
> > Subject: ext2 write performance regression from 2.6.32
> > To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Since upgrading 2.6.30->2.6.32, ext2 write performance of SATA/SD/USB
> > card is very low (except SSD). The issue is also exist after 2.6.32,
> > e.g. 2.6.34, 2.6.35. Write performance of SATA decreased from 115MB/s
> > to 80MB/s. Write performance of SDHC decreased from 12MB/s to 3MB/s.
> > 
> > My test tool is iozone  and dd, test file size is 2*RAM size. CPU is
> > PowerPC core e500, SATA disk is WD 10000RPM drives, SDHC is Sandisk
> > class 10 card.
> > 
> > What decrease the performance? Because the sequence of block of
> > writing is not continuous.
> > Here are some debug info below (in function  mmc_blk_issue_rq).
> > major means major device number of the device, pos means the position
> > of writing, blocks means the block number need writing.
> > 
> > iozone -Rab result -i0 -r64 -n512m -g512m -f /mnt/ff
> > dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/ff bs=16K count=32768
> > …………..
> > major=179, pos=270360, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=278736, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=24, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=8216, blocks=24
> > major=0, pos=16424, blocks=8
> > major=0, pos=196624, blocks=104
> > major=179, pos=204920, blocks=16
> > major=0, pos=204936, blocks=128
> > …………..
> > major=179, pos=1048592, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=1074256, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=1090656, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=16, blocks=8
> > major=0, pos=884704, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=884832, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=884960, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=885088, blocks=32
> > major=179, pos=1082456, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=1098856, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=24, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=8232, blocks=8
> > major=179, pos=204920, blocks=8
> > major=0, pos=885120, blocks=128
> > ………….
> > 
> > Some write are from write_boundary_block, these are necessary. But
> > others that major is not zero is from def_blk_aops->blkdev_writepage.
> > Before 2.6.32, there is no case happened like this. And why, I have
> > already mount filesystem. What are the usage of these data?
> > 
> > Temporarily, I mask all these write operations in do_writepage()
> > below, /* no need to write device if the operation is not used to
> > format device */ if (imajor(mapping->host) && (wbc->sync_mode ==
> > WB_SYNC_NONE)) return 0;
> > 
> > test record below (same behavior to 2.6.30):
> > …………
> > major=0, pos=23488, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=23616, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=23744, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=23872, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=24000, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=24128, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=24256, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=24384, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=24512, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=24640, blocks=128
> > major=179, pos=24768, blocks=8—from write_boundary_block()
> > major=0, pos=24784, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=24912, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=25040, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=29136, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=29264, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=29392, blocks=128
> > major=0, pos=29520, blocks=128
> > …………..
> > 
> > Until now it works fine (except format disk). Data integrity is fine.
> > Who can tell me what is the usage of the redundant data. I’m not
> > familiar with filesystem.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> > Best Regards
> > Eiji
> > --
> > 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/
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists