All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Raz <raziebe@gmail.com>
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: HUGE XFS regression in 2.6.32 upto 2.6.38
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:52:33 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110412095233.GZ31057@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinyBD7Zm3DvoYCVfYJkF36yXz6hOA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:58:53AM +0300, Raz wrote:
> Christoph Hello
> I am testing 2.6.38 with AIM benchmark.
> I compared 2.6.38 to 2.6.27 and I noticed that 2.6.27 is much better
> than 2.6.38 when
> doing sync random writes test over an xfs regular file over native
> Linux partition on top common sata disk.
> I git bisected the problem and I reached this SHA1:
> commit 13e6d5cdde0e785aa943810f08b801cadd0935df
> Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> Date:   Mon Aug 31 21:00:31 2009 -0300
> 
>    xfs: merge fsync and O_SYNC handling
> 
>    The guarantees for O_SYNC are exactly the same as the ones we need to
>    make for an fsync call (and given that Linux O_SYNC is O_DSYNC the
>    equivalent is fdadatasync, but we treat both the same in XFS), except
>    with a range data writeout.  Jan Kara has started unifying these two
>    path for filesystems using the generic helpers, and I've started to
>    look at XFS.
> ...
> 
> 
> The bellow two tests presents the how different performance is before and patch:
> #test 16) bisect 11
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Test        Test        Elapsed  Iteration    Iteration          Operation
> Number       Name      Time (sec)   Count   Rate (loops/sec)    Rate (ops/sec)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     1 sync_disk_rw        30.71         19    0.61869         1583.85
> Sync Random Disk Writes (K)/second
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's clearly showing that your sync writes are not hitting the
disk. IOWs, the sync writes are not synchronous at all. There is
no way a single SATA drive can do >1500 writes to stable storage
per second.

IOWs, before this fix, sync writes were broken on your hardware.

> #test 17 ) bisect 12
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     1 sync_disk_rw        69.05          1    0.01448           37.07
> Sync Random Disk Writes (K)/second
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's pretty tpyical for a SATA drive where sync writes are
actually hitting the platter correctly.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

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

  reply	other threads:[~2011-04-12  9:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-12  7:58 HUGE XFS regression in 2.6.32 upto 2.6.38 Raz
2011-04-12  9:52 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2011-04-12 11:19   ` Raz
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-04-12  7:52 Huge " raz ben yehuda
2011-04-12 16:06 ` Christoph Hellwig

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=20110412095233.GZ31057@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=raziebe@gmail.com \
    --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.