All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn, Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>,
	sandeen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:17:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090730221727.GI12579@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33307c790907301501v4c605ea8oe57762b21d414445@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Martin Bligh wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Jens Axboe<jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28 2009, Chad Talbott wrote:
> >> I run a simple workload on a 4GB machine which dirties a few largish
> >> inodes like so:
> >>
> >> # seq 10 | xargs -P0 -n1 -i\{} dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/dump\{}
> >> bs=1024k count=100
> >>
> >> While the dds are running data is written out at disk speed.  However,
> >> once the dds have run to completion and exited there is ~500MB of
> >> dirty memory left.  Background writeout then takes about 3 more
> >> minutes to clean memory at only ~3.3MB/s.  When I explicitly sync, I
> >> can see that the disk is capable of 40MB/s, which finishes off the
> >> files in ~10s. [1]
> >>
> >> An interesting recent-ish change is "writeback: speed up writeback of
> >> big dirty files."  When I revert the change to __sync_single_inode the
> >> problem appears to go away and background writeout proceeds at disk
> >> speed.  Interestingly, that code is in the git commit [2], but not in
> >> the post to LKML. [3]  This is may not be the fix, but it makes this
> >> test behave better.
> >
> > Can I talk you into trying the per-bdi writeback patchset? I just tried
> > your test on a 16gb machine, and the dd's finish immediately since it
> > wont trip the writeout at that percentage of dirty memory. The 1GB of
> > dirty memory is flushed when it gets too old, 30 seconds later in two
> > chunks of writeout running at disk speed.
> 
> How big did you make the dds? It has to be writing more data than
> you have RAM, or it's not going to do anything much interesting ;-)

The test case above on a 4G machine is only generating 1G of dirty data.
I ran the same test case on the 16G, resulting in only background
writeout. The relevant bit here being that the background writeout
finished quickly, writing at disk speed.

I re-ran the same test, but using 300 100MB files instead. While the
dd's are running, we are going at ~80MB/sec (this is disk speed, it's an
x25-m). When the dd's are done, it continues doing 80MB/sec for 10
seconds or so. Then the remainder (about 2G) is written in bursts at
disk speeds, but with some time in between.

-- 
Jens Axboe


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn, Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>,
	sandeen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:17:28 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090730221727.GI12579@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33307c790907301501v4c605ea8oe57762b21d414445@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jul 30 2009, Martin Bligh wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Jens Axboe<jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28 2009, Chad Talbott wrote:
> >> I run a simple workload on a 4GB machine which dirties a few largish
> >> inodes like so:
> >>
> >> # seq 10 | xargs -P0 -n1 -i\{} dd if=/dev/zero of=/tmp/dump\{}
> >> bs=1024k count=100
> >>
> >> While the dds are running data is written out at disk speed.  However,
> >> once the dds have run to completion and exited there is ~500MB of
> >> dirty memory left.  Background writeout then takes about 3 more
> >> minutes to clean memory at only ~3.3MB/s.  When I explicitly sync, I
> >> can see that the disk is capable of 40MB/s, which finishes off the
> >> files in ~10s. [1]
> >>
> >> An interesting recent-ish change is "writeback: speed up writeback of
> >> big dirty files."  When I revert the change to __sync_single_inode the
> >> problem appears to go away and background writeout proceeds at disk
> >> speed.  Interestingly, that code is in the git commit [2], but not in
> >> the post to LKML. [3]  This is may not be the fix, but it makes this
> >> test behave better.
> >
> > Can I talk you into trying the per-bdi writeback patchset? I just tried
> > your test on a 16gb machine, and the dd's finish immediately since it
> > wont trip the writeout at that percentage of dirty memory. The 1GB of
> > dirty memory is flushed when it gets too old, 30 seconds later in two
> > chunks of writeout running at disk speed.
> 
> How big did you make the dds? It has to be writing more data than
> you have RAM, or it's not going to do anything much interesting ;-)

The test case above on a 4G machine is only generating 1G of dirty data.
I ran the same test case on the 16G, resulting in only background
writeout. The relevant bit here being that the background writeout
finished quickly, writing at disk speed.

I re-ran the same test, but using 300 100MB files instead. While the
dd's are running, we are going at ~80MB/sec (this is disk speed, it's an
x25-m). When the dd's are done, it continues doing 80MB/sec for 10
seconds or so. Then the remainder (about 2G) is written in bursts at
disk speeds, but with some time in between.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-07-30 22:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-07-28 19:11 Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout Chad Talbott
2009-07-28 19:11 ` Chad Talbott
2009-07-28 21:49 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-28 21:49   ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29  7:15   ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29  7:15     ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29 11:43     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-29 11:43       ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-29 14:11       ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29 14:11         ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  1:06         ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  1:06           ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  1:12           ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  1:12             ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  1:57             ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  1:57               ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  2:59               ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  2:59                 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  4:08                 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  4:08                   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 19:55                   ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 19:55                     ` Martin Bligh
2009-08-01  2:02                     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  2:02                       ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  0:19       ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  0:19         ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  1:28         ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  1:28           ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  2:09           ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  2:09             ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  2:57             ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  2:57               ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30  3:19               ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  3:19                 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 20:33                 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 20:33                   ` Martin Bligh
2009-08-01  2:58                   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  2:58                     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  4:10                   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  4:10                     ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  1:49         ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30  1:49           ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 21:39 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 21:39   ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:01   ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:01     ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:17     ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-07-30 22:17       ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:34       ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:34         ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:43         ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:43           ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:48           ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:48             ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-31  7:50             ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-31  7:50               ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-01  4:03             ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  4:03               ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  4:53               ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  4:53                 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  5:03                 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  5:03                   ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  4:02         ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01  4:02           ` Wu Fengguang

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=20090730221727.GI12579@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@google.com \
    --cc=ctalbott@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mbligh@google.com \
    --cc=mrubin@google.com \
    --cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn \
    /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.