[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f38db337cf26390f7c7488a0bc2076633737775b.camel@unipv.it>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:25:02 +0100
From: Andrea Vai <andrea.vai@...pv.it>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: "Schmid, Carsten" <Carsten_Schmid@...tor.com>,
Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@...ium.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@....com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AW: Slow I/O on USB media after commit
f664a3cc17b7d0a2bc3b3ab96181e1029b0ec0e6
Il giorno gio, 12/12/2019 alle 05.33 +0800, Ming Lei ha scritto:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 11:07:45AM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 12:00:58PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > I didn't reproduce the issue in my test environment, and follows
> > > Andrea's test commands[1]:
> > >
> > > mount UUID=$uuid /mnt/pendrive 2>&1 |tee -a $logfile
> > > SECONDS=0
> > > cp $testfile /mnt/pendrive 2>&1 |tee -a $logfile
> > > umount /mnt/pendrive 2>&1 |tee -a $logfile
> > >
> > > The 'cp' command supposes to open/close the file just once,
> however
> > > ext4_release_file() & write pages is observed to run for 4358
> times
> > > when executing the above 'cp' test.
> >
> > Why are we sure the ext4_release_file() / _fput() is coming from
> the
> > cp command, as opposed to something else that might be running on
> the
> > system under test? _fput() is called by the kernel when the last
>
> Please see the log:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/3af3666920e7d46f8f0c6d88612f143ffabc743c.camel@unipv.it/2-log_ming.zip
>
> Which is collected by:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> MAJ=$1
> MIN=$2
> MAJ=$(( $MAJ << 20 ))
> DEV=$(( $MAJ | $MIN ))
>
> /usr/share/bcc/tools/trace -t -C \
> 't:block:block_rq_issue (args->dev == '$DEV') "%s %d %d", args-
> >rwbs, args->sector, args->nr_sector' \
> 't:block:block_rq_insert (args->dev == '$DEV') "%s %d %d", args-
> >rwbs, args->sector, args->nr_sector'
>
> $MAJ:$MIN points to the USB storage disk.
>
> From the above IO trace, there are two write paths, one is from cp,
> another is from writeback wq.
>
> The stackcount trace[1] is consistent with the IO trace log since it
> only shows two IO paths, that is why I concluded that the write done
> via
> ext4_release_file() is from 'cp'.
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/320b315b9c87543d4fb919ecbdf841596c8fbcea.camel@unipv.it/2-log_ming_20191129_150609.zip
>
> > reference to a struct file is released. (Specifically, if you
> have a
> > fd which is dup'ed, it's only when the last fd corresponding to
> the
> > struct file is closed, and the struct file is about to be
> released,
> > does the file system's f_ops->release function get called.)
> >
> > So the first question I'd ask is whether there is anything else
> going
> > on the system, and whether the writes are happening to the USB
> thumb
> > drive, or to some other storage device. And if there is something
> > else which is writing to the pendrive, maybe that's why no one
> else
> > has been able to reproduce the OP's complaint....
>
> OK, we can ask Andrea to confirm that via the following trace, which
> will add pid/comm info in the stack trace:
>
> /usr/share/bcc/tools/stackcount blk_mq_sched_request_inserted
>
> Andrew, could you collect the above log again when running new/bad
> kernel for confirming if the write done by ext4_release_file() is
> from
> the 'cp' process?
You can find the stackcount log attached. It has been produced by:
- /usr/share/bcc/tools/stackcount blk_mq_sched_request_inserted > trace.log
- wait some seconds
- run the test (1 copy trial), wait for the test to finish, wait some seconds
- stop the trace (ctrl+C)
The test took 1994 seconds to complete.
I also tried the usual test with btrfs and xfs. Btrfs behavior looks
"good". xfs seems sometimes better, sometimes worse, I would say. I
don't know if it matters, anyway you can also find the results of the
two tests (100 trials each). Basically, btrfs is always between 68 and
89 seconds, with a cyclicity (?) with "period=2 trials". xfs looks
almost always very good (63-65s), but sometimes "bad" (>300s).
Thanks,
Andrea
View attachment "test_btrfs_20191217.txt" of type "text/plain" (11367 bytes)
View attachment "test_xfs_20191217.txt" of type "text/plain" (11206 bytes)
Download attachment "trace_20191217.zip" of type "application/zip" (14385 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists