[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121215020113.GK9453@blackbox.djwong.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:01:13 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, lucho@...kov.net, jack@...e.cz, ericvh@...il.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, rminnich@...dia.gov, tytso@....edu,
martin.petersen@...cle.com, neilb@...e.de, david@...morbit.com,
Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
bharrosh@...asas.com, jlayton@...ba.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] block: Optionally snapshot page contents to provide
stable pages during write
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:12:37PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Darrick J. Wong
> <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:48:06PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On 12/13/2012 12:08 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >> > Several complaints have been received regarding long file write latencies when
> >> > memory pages must be held stable during writeback. Since it might not be
> >> > acceptable to stall programs for the entire duration of a page write (which may
> >> > take many milliseconds even on good hardware), enable a second strategy wherein
> >> > pages are snapshotted as part of submit_bio; the snapshot can be held stable
> >> > while writes continue.
> >> >
> >> > This provides a band-aid to provide stable page writes on jbd without needing
> >> > to backport the fixed locking scheme in jbd2. A mount option is added to ext4
> >> > to allow administrators to enable it there.
> >>
> >> I'm a bit confused as to what it has to do with ext3. Wouldn't this be
> >> useful as a mount option everywhere, though?
> >
> > ext3 requires snapshots; the rest are ok with either strategy.
> >
> > *If* snapshotting is generally liked, then yes I'll go redo it as a vfs mount
> > option.
> >
> >> If this becomes widely used, would it be better to snapshot on
> >> wait_for_stable_page instead of on io submission?
> >
> > That really depends on how long you can afford to wait and how much free
> > memory you have. :) It's all a big tradeoff between write latency and
> > consumption of memory pages and bandwidth, and one that I doubt I'm qualified
> > to make for everyone.
> >
> >> FWIW, I'm about to pound pretty hard on this whole patchset on a box
> >> that doesn't need stable pages. I'll let you know how it goes.
> >
> > Yay!
> >
> > --D
>
> It survived. I hit at least one mm bug, but I really don't think it's
> a problem with your code. (I have not tried this workload on Linux
> 3.7 at all before. It normally runs on 3.5.) The box in question is
Would you mind sending along the bug report so I can make sure?
> ext4 on LVM on dm-crypt on (hardware) RAID 5 on hpsa, which should not
> need stable pages.
>
> The majority of the data written (that wasn't unlinked before it was
> dropped from cache) was checksummed when written and verified later.
> Most of this data was written using mmap. This workload hammers the
> vm concurrently in several threads, and it frequently stalls when
> stable pages are enabled, so it's probably exercising the code
> decently well.
Did you observe any change in performance?
> Feel free to add Tested-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Will do! Thanks for the testing!
--D
--
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