All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <wfg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix readahead pipeline break caused by block plug
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:22:17 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120131222217.GE4378@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120131141301.ba35ffe0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:13:01PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

[..]
> > For me, this patch helps only so much and does not get back all the
> > performance lost in case of raw disk read. It does improve the throughput
> > from around 85-90 MB/s to 110-120 MB/s but running the same dd with
> > iflag=direct, gets me more than 250MB/s.
> > 
> > # echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches 
> > # dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K
> > 1024+0 records in
> > 1024+0 records out
> > 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.03305 s, 119 MB/s
> > 
> > echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches 
> > # dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K iflag=direct
> > 1024+0 records in
> > 1024+0 records out
> > 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.07426 s, 264 MB/s
> 
> Buffered I/O against the block device has a tradition of doing Weird
> Things.  Do you see the same behavior when reading from a regular file?

No. Reading file on ext4 file system is working just fine.

> 
> > I think it is happening because in case of raw read we are submitting
> > one page at a time to request queue
> 
> (That's not a raw read - it's using pagecache.  Please get the terms right!)

Ok.

> 
> We've never really bothered making the /dev/sda[X] I/O very efficient
> for large I/O's under the (probably wrong) assumption that it isn't a
> very interesting case.  Regular files will (or should) use the mpage
> functions, via address_space_operations.readpages().  fs/blockdev.c
> doesn't even implement it.
> 
> > and by the time all the pages
> > are submitted and one big merged request is formed it wates lot of time.
> 
> But that was the case in eariler kernels too.  Why did it change?

Actually, I assumed that the case of reading /dev/sda[X] worked well in
earlier kernels. Sorry about that. Will build a 2.6.38 kernel tonight
and run the test case again to make sure we had same overhead and
relatively poor performance while reading /dev/sda[X].

I think I got confused with Eric's result in another mail where he was
reading /dev/sda and getting around 265MB/s with plug removed. And I was
wondering that why am I not getting same results.

# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=2M
# count=2048
2048+0 enregistrements lus
2048+0 enregistrements ecrits
4294967296 octets (4,3 GB) copies, 16,2309 s, 265 MB/s

Maybe something to do with SSD. I will test it anyway with older kernel.

Thanks
Vivek

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <wfg@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix readahead pipeline break caused by block plug
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:22:17 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120131222217.GE4378@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120131141301.ba35ffe0.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 02:13:01PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:

[..]
> > For me, this patch helps only so much and does not get back all the
> > performance lost in case of raw disk read. It does improve the throughput
> > from around 85-90 MB/s to 110-120 MB/s but running the same dd with
> > iflag=direct, gets me more than 250MB/s.
> > 
> > # echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches 
> > # dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K
> > 1024+0 records in
> > 1024+0 records out
> > 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 9.03305 s, 119 MB/s
> > 
> > echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches 
> > # dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1K iflag=direct
> > 1024+0 records in
> > 1024+0 records out
> > 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 4.07426 s, 264 MB/s
> 
> Buffered I/O against the block device has a tradition of doing Weird
> Things.  Do you see the same behavior when reading from a regular file?

No. Reading file on ext4 file system is working just fine.

> 
> > I think it is happening because in case of raw read we are submitting
> > one page at a time to request queue
> 
> (That's not a raw read - it's using pagecache.  Please get the terms right!)

Ok.

> 
> We've never really bothered making the /dev/sda[X] I/O very efficient
> for large I/O's under the (probably wrong) assumption that it isn't a
> very interesting case.  Regular files will (or should) use the mpage
> functions, via address_space_operations.readpages().  fs/blockdev.c
> doesn't even implement it.
> 
> > and by the time all the pages
> > are submitted and one big merged request is formed it wates lot of time.
> 
> But that was the case in eariler kernels too.  Why did it change?

Actually, I assumed that the case of reading /dev/sda[X] worked well in
earlier kernels. Sorry about that. Will build a 2.6.38 kernel tonight
and run the test case again to make sure we had same overhead and
relatively poor performance while reading /dev/sda[X].

I think I got confused with Eric's result in another mail where he was
reading /dev/sda and getting around 265MB/s with plug removed. And I was
wondering that why am I not getting same results.

# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=2M
# count=2048
2048+0 enregistrements lus
2048+0 enregistrements écrits
4294967296 octets (4,3 GB) copiés, 16,2309 s, 265 MB/s

Maybe something to do with SSD. I will test it anyway with older kernel.

Thanks
Vivek

  reply	other threads:[~2012-01-31 22:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-31  7:59 [PATCH] fix readahead pipeline break caused by block plug Shaohua Li
2012-01-31  7:59 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-31  8:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31  8:36   ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31  8:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-31  8:48   ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-31  8:50   ` Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-31  8:50     ` Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-31  8:53   ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-31  8:53     ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-31  9:17     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-31  9:17       ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-31 10:20 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 10:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 10:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 10:34   ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 10:46   ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 10:46     ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 10:57     ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 10:57       ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 11:34       ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 11:34         ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 11:42         ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 11:42           ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 11:57           ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 11:57             ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-31 12:20             ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 12:20               ` Wu Fengguang
2012-02-01  2:25   ` Shaohua Li
2012-02-01  2:25     ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-31 14:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 14:47   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 20:23   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 20:23     ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 22:03 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 22:03   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 22:13   ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-31 22:13     ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-31 22:22     ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2012-01-31 22:22       ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01  3:36       ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01  3:36         ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01  7:10         ` Wu Fengguang
2012-02-01  7:10           ` Wu Fengguang
2012-02-01 16:01           ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01 16:01             ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01  9:18         ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-02-01  9:18           ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-02-01 20:10           ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01 20:10             ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-01 20:13             ` Jeff Moyer
2012-02-01 20:13               ` Jeff Moyer
2012-02-01 20:22             ` Andrew Morton
2012-02-01 20:22               ` Andrew Morton
2012-02-01  7:02   ` Wu Fengguang
2012-02-01  7:02     ` 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=20120131222217.GE4378@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    --cc=wfg@linux.intel.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.