All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: avoid synchronous transaction in xfs_fs_write_inode
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 17:29:11 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100609072911.GI7869@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100608195905.GA577@infradead.org>

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 03:59:07PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> We already rely on the fact that the sync code will cause a synchronous
> log force later on (currently via xfs_fs_sync_fs -> xfs_quiesce_data ->
> xfs_sync_data), so no need to do this here.  This allows us to avoid
> a lot of synchronous log forces during sync, which pays of especially
> with delayed logging enabled.   Some compilebench numbers that show
> this:
> 
> xfs (delayed logging, 256k logbufs)
> ===================================
> 
> intial create		  25.94 MB/s	  25.75 MB/s	  25.64 MB/s
> create			   8.54 MB/s	   9.12 MB/s	   9.15 MB/s
> patch			   2.47 MB/s	   2.47 MB/s	   3.17 MB/s
> compile			  29.65 MB/s	  30.51 MB/s	  27.33 MB/s
> clean			  90.92 MB/s	  98.83 MB/s	 128.87 MB/s
> read tree		  11.90 MB/s	  11.84 MB/s	   8.56 MB/s
> read compiled		  28.75 MB/s	  29.96 MB/s	  24.25 MB/s
> delete tree		8.39 seconds	8.12 seconds	8.46 seconds
> delete compiled		8.35 seconds	8.44 seconds	5.11 seconds
> stat tree		6.03 seconds	5.59 seconds	5.19 seconds
> stat compiled tree	9.00 seconds	9.52 seconds	8.49 seconds
> 
> 
> xfs + write_inode log_force removal
> ===================================
> intial create		  25.87 MB/s	  25.76 MB/s	  25.87 MB/s
> create			  15.18 MB/s	  14.80 MB/s	  14.94 MB/s
> patch			   3.13 MB/s	   3.14 MB/s	   3.11 MB/s
> compile			  36.74 MB/s	  37.17 MB/s	  36.84 MB/s
> clean			 226.02 MB/s	 222.58 MB/s	 217.94 MB/s
> read tree		  15.14 MB/s	  15.02 MB/s	  15.14 MB/s
> read compiled tree	  29.30 MB/s	  29.31 MB/s	  29.32 MB/s
> delete tree		6.22 seconds	6.14 seconds	6.15 seconds
> delete compiled tree	5.75 seconds	5.92 seconds	5.81 seconds
> stat tree		4.60 seconds	4.51 seconds	4.56 seconds
> stat compiled tree	4.07 seconds	3.87 seconds	3.96 seconds
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

All great - I attempted this myself - but it breaks bulkstat. See
xfstest 183:

183 2s ... - output mismatch (see 183.out.bad)
--- 183.out     2010-04-28 15:00:22.000000000 +1000
+++ 183.out.bad 2010-06-09 17:10:23.000000000 +1000
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 QA output created by 183
 Start original bulkstat_unlink_test with -r switch
 Runing extended checks.
-Iteration 0 ... (100 files)passed
+Iteration 0 ... (100 files)ERROR, count(2) != scount(1).
Ran: 183
Failures: 183
Failed 1 of 1 tests

Test 183 fails with this patch because it leaves the inode pinned in
the WB_SYNC_ALL case after calling xfs_log_inode(), and so the inode
can't be flushed to the backing buffer. Hence bulkstat may not see
changes to an inode after a sync becuase they weren't flushed during
the sync.

I think that we need to revisit bulkstat's use of the backing
buffers for performance reasons now we have a much more scalable
inode cache. Having to keep the backing buffers coherent is only
going to be more problematic in future as things get even more
asynchronous....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

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

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-09  7:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-08 19:59 [PATCH] xfs: avoid synchronous transaction in xfs_fs_write_inode Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-09  7:29 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-06-15 11:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-16  0:32     ` Dave Chinner
2010-06-17 23:51     ` Dave Chinner

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=20100609072911.GI7869@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --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.