Message-ID: <CACVXFVPxw7rreObFjmXyvLcixPFmKCT_oX01o7vTS7=LvmTg6w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 25 Apr 2015 18:32:30 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	"Justin M. Forbes" <jforbes@...oraproject.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: loop block-mq conversion scalability issues

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 5:46 AM, Justin M. Forbes
<jforbes@...oraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 10:59 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> Thanks for the report.
>>
>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 16:04:10 -0500
>> "Justin M. Forbes" <jforbes@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The block-mq conversion for loop in 4.0 kernels is showing us an
>> > interesting scalability problem with live CDs (ro, squashfs).  It was
>> > noticed when testing the Fedora beta that the more CPUs a liveCD image
>> > was given, the slower it would boot. A 4 core qemu instance or bare
>> > metal instance took more than twice as long to boot compared to a single
>> > CPU instance.  After investigating, this came directly to the block-mq
>> > conversion, reverting these 4 patches will return performance. More
>> > details are available at
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210857
>> > I don't think that reverting the patches is the ideal solution so I am
>> > looking for other options.  Since you know this code a bit better than I
>> > do I thought I would run it by you while I am looking as well.
>>
>> I can understand the issue because the default @max_active for
>> alloc_workqueue() is quite big(512), which may cause too much
>> context switchs, then loop I/O performance gets decreased.
>>
>> Actually I have written the kernel dio/aio based patch for decreasing
>> both CPU and memory utilization without sacrificing I/O performance,
>> and I will try to improve and push the patch during this cycle and hope
>> it can be merged(kernel/aio.c change is dropped, and only fs change is
>> needed on fs/direct-io.c).
>>
>> But the following change should help for your case, could you test it?
>>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
>> index c6b3726..b1cb41d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
>> @@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ static int __init loop_init(void)
>>       }
>>
>>       loop_wq = alloc_workqueue("kloopd",
>> -                     WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
>> +                     WQ_MEM_RECLAIM | WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_UNBOUND, 32);
>>       if (!loop_wq) {
>>               err = -ENOMEM;
>>               goto misc_out;
>>
> Patch tested, it made things work (I gave up after 5 minutes and boot
> still seemed hung). I also tried values of 1, 16, 64, and 128).
> Everything below 128 was much worse than the current situation. Setting
> it at 128 seemed about the same as booting without the patch. I can do
> some more testing over the weekend, but I don't think this is the
> correct solution.

I saw you mention there are about 200 kworker threads waiting for run,
that is why I thought it may be related with 'max active'

Also you can change the workqueue as bound by removing the flag
of 'WQ_UNBOUND' to see if there is any difference?

Could you share me how loop is used during the Fedora live boot?

> I would be interested in testing your dio/aio patches as well though.

Recently there is big changes in loop, and I need to port the original
patches to current loop, but I guess it shouldn't take much time.

Thanks,
Ming Lei
--
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