All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>
To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Peter Grandi <pg_xf2@xf2.for.sabi.co.uk>,
	Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux XFS <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs]
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:39:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812161039.07700.Martin@lichtvoll.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081215223857.GF32301@disturbed>

Am Montag 15 Dezember 2008 schrieb Dave Chinner:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:02:05PM +0000, Peter Grandi wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > But - as far as I understood - the filesystem doesn't have to
> > > wait for barriers to complete, but could continue issuing IO
> > > requests happily. A barrier only means, any request prior to
> > > that have to land before and any after it after it.
> > >
> > > It doesn't mean that the barrier has to land immediately and
> > > the filesystem has to wait for this. At least that always was
> > > the whole point of barriers for me. If thats not the case I
> > > misunderstood the purpose of barriers to the maximum extent
> > > possible.
> >
> > Unfortunately that seems the case.
> >
> > The purpose of barriers is to guarantee that relevant data is
> > known to be on persistent storage (kind of hardware 'fsync').
> >
> > In effect write barrier means "tell me when relevant data is on
> > persistent storage", or less precisely "flush/sync writes now
> > and tell me when it is done". Properties as to ordering are just
> > a side effect.
>
> No, that is incorrect.
>
> Barriers provide strong ordering semantics.  I/Os issued before the
> barrier must be completed before the barrier I/O, and I/Os issued
> after the barrier write must not be started before the barrier write
> completes. The elevators are not allowed to re-оrder I/Os around
> barriers.
>
> This is all documented in Documentation/block/barrier.txt. Please
> read it because most of what you are saying appears to be based on
> incorrect assumptions about what barriers do.

Hmmm, so I am not completely off track it seems ;-).

What I still do not understand then is: How can write barriers + write 
cache be slower than no write barriers + no cache? I still would expect 
write barriers + write cache be in between no barriers + write cache and 
no barriers + no cache performance wise. And would see anything else as a 
regression basically.

This doesn't go into my brain yet and I thought I understood 
Documentation/block/barrier.txt well enough before writing my article.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>
To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Cc: Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs]
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:39:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812161039.07700.Martin@lichtvoll.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081215223857.GF32301@disturbed>

Am Montag 15 Dezember 2008 schrieb Dave Chinner:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:02:05PM +0000, Peter Grandi wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > But - as far as I understood - the filesystem doesn't have to
> > > wait for barriers to complete, but could continue issuing IO
> > > requests happily. A barrier only means, any request prior to
> > > that have to land before and any after it after it.
> > >
> > > It doesn't mean that the barrier has to land immediately and
> > > the filesystem has to wait for this. At least that always was
> > > the whole point of barriers for me. If thats not the case I
> > > misunderstood the purpose of barriers to the maximum extent
> > > possible.
> >
> > Unfortunately that seems the case.
> >
> > The purpose of barriers is to guarantee that relevant data is
> > known to be on persistent storage (kind of hardware 'fsync').
> >
> > In effect write barrier means "tell me when relevant data is on
> > persistent storage", or less precisely "flush/sync writes now
> > and tell me when it is done". Properties as to ordering are just
> > a side effect.
>
> No, that is incorrect.
>
> Barriers provide strong ordering semantics.  I/Os issued before the
> barrier must be completed before the barrier I/O, and I/Os issued
> after the barrier write must not be started before the barrier write
> completes. The elevators are not allowed to re-оrder I/Os around
> barriers.
>
> This is all documented in Documentation/block/barrier.txt. Please
> read it because most of what you are saying appears to be based on
> incorrect assumptions about what barriers do.

Hmmm, so I am not completely off track it seems ;-).

What I still do not understand then is: How can write barriers + write 
cache be slower than no write barriers + no cache? I still would expect 
write barriers + write cache be in between no barriers + write cache and 
no barriers + no cache performance wise. And would see anything else as a 
regression basically.

This doesn't go into my brain yet and I thought I understood 
Documentation/block/barrier.txt well enough before writing my article.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2008-12-16  9:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-06 14:28 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs] Justin Piszcz
2008-12-06 14:28 ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-06 15:36 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-06 20:35   ` Redeeman
2008-12-06 20:35     ` Redeeman
2008-12-13 12:54   ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-13 12:54     ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-13 17:26     ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-13 17:26       ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-13 17:40       ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-13 17:40         ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-14  3:31         ` Redeeman
2008-12-14  3:31           ` Redeeman
2008-12-14 14:02           ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 14:02             ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 18:12             ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 18:12               ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 22:02               ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 22:02                 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-15 18:48                 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-15 22:50                   ` Peter Grandi
2009-02-18 22:14                     ` Leon Woestenberg
2009-02-18 22:24                       ` Eric Sandeen
2009-02-18 23:09                       ` Ralf Liebenow
2009-02-18 23:19                         ` Eric Sandeen
2009-02-20 19:19                       ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-15 22:38                 ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-15 22:38                   ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-16  9:39                   ` Martin Steigerwald [this message]
2008-12-16  9:39                     ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-16 20:57                     ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-16 23:14                     ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-16 23:14                       ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-17 21:40                 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-17 21:40                   ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-18  8:20                   ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-18 23:33                     ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-21 19:16                     ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-22 13:19                       ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-22 13:19                         ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-18 22:26                   ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-18 22:26                     ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-20 14:06               ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 18:35             ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 18:35               ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 17:49           ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 17:49             ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 23:36         ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-14 23:36           ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-14 23:55           ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-13 18:01       ` David Lethe
2008-12-13 18:01         ` David Lethe
2008-12-06 18:42 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-11  0:20 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-11  0:20   ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-11  9:18   ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-11  9:18     ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-11  9:24     ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-11  9:24       ` Justin Piszcz
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-12-14 18:33 Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 18:33 ` Martin Steigerwald

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200812161039.07700.Martin@lichtvoll.de \
    --to=martin@lichtvoll.de \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=pg_xf2@xf2.for.sabi.co.uk \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.