linux-kernel - Re: [performance bug] kernel building regression on 64 LCPUs machine

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: <1300779499.30136.353.camel@debian>
Date:	Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:38:19 +0800
From:	"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	"tytso@....edu" <tytso@....edu>,
	"jaxboe@...ionio.com" <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [performance bug] kernel building regression on 64 LCPUs
 machine


On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 02:27 +0800, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> writes:
> 
> > Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> >
> >> I'm not so happy with ext4 results. The difference between ext3 and ext4
> >> might be that amount of data written by kjournald in ext3 is considerably
> >> larger if it ends up pushing out data (because of data=ordered mode) as
> >> well. With ext4, all data are written by filemap_fdatawrite() from fsync
> >> because of delayed allocation. And thus maybe for ext4 WRITE_SYNC_PLUG
> >> is hurting us with your fast storage and small amount of written data? With
> >> WRITE_SYNC, data would be already on it's way to storage before we get to
> >> wait for them...
> >
> >> Or it could be that we really send more data in WRITE mode rather than in
> >> WRITE_SYNC mode with the patch on ext4 (that should be verifiable with
> >> blktrace). But I wonder how that could happen...
> >
> > It looks like this is the case, the I/O isn't coming down as
> > synchronous.  I'm seeing a lot of writes, very few write sync's, which
> > means that the write stream will be preempted by the incoming reads.
> >
> > Time to audit that fsync path and make sure it's marked properly, I
> > guess.
> 
> OK, I spoke too soon.  Here's the blktrace summary information (I re-ran
> the tests using 3 samples, the blktrace is from the last run of the
> three in each case):
> 
> Vanilla
> -------
> fs_mark: 307.288 files/sec
> fio: 286509 KB/s
> 
> Total (sde):
>  Reads Queued:     341,558,   84,994MiB  Writes Queued:       1,561K,    6,244MiB
>  Read Dispatches:  341,493,   84,994MiB  Write Dispatches:  648,046,    6,244MiB
>  Reads Requeued:         0               Writes Requeued:        27
>  Reads Completed:  341,491,   84,994MiB  Writes Completed:  648,021,    6,244MiB
>  Read Merges:           65,    2,780KiB  Write Merges:      913,076,    3,652MiB
>  IO unplugs:       578,102               Timer unplugs:           0
> 
> Throughput (R/W): 282,797KiB/s / 20,776KiB/s
> Events (sde): 16,724,303 entries
> 
> Patched
> -------
> fs_mark: 278.587 files/sec
> fio: 298007 KB/s
> 
> Total (sde):
>  Reads Queued:     345,407,   86,834MiB  Writes Queued:       1,566K,    6,264MiB
>  Read Dispatches:  345,391,   86,834MiB  Write Dispatches:  327,404,    6,264MiB
>  Reads Requeued:         0               Writes Requeued:        33
>  Reads Completed:  345,391,   86,834MiB  Writes Completed:  327,371,    6,264MiB
>  Read Merges:           16,    1,576KiB  Write Merges:        1,238K,    4,954MiB
>  IO unplugs:       580,308               Timer unplugs:           0
> 
> Throughput (R/W): 288,771KiB/s / 20,832KiB/s
> Events (sde): 14,030,610 entries
> 
> So, it appears we flush out writes much more aggressively without the
> patch in place.  I'm not sure why the write bandwidth looks to be higher
> in the patched case... odd.
> 

Jan:
Do you have new idea on this? 

--
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/