From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fadvise: perform WILLNEED readahead in a workqueue
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:25:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121216002549.GA19402@dcvr.yhbt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121215223448.08272fd5@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:54:48 +0000
> Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
>
> > Applications streaming large files may want to reduce disk spinups and
> > I/O latency by performing large amounts of readahead up front
>
> How does it compare benchmark wise with a user thread or using the
> readahead() call ?
Very well.
My main concern is for the speed of the initial pread()/read() call
after open().
Setting EARLY_EXIT means my test program _exit()s immediately after the
first pread(). In my test program (below), I wait for the background
thread to become ready before open() so I would not take overhead from
pthread_create() into account.
RA=1 uses a pthread + readahead()
Not setting RA uses fadvise (with my patch)
# readahead + pthread.
$ EARLY_EXIT=1 RA=1 time ./first_read 1G
0.00user 0.05system 0:01.37elapsed 3%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 600maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1major+187minor)pagefaults 0swaps
# patched fadvise
$ EARLY_EXIT=1 time ./first_read 1G
0.00user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 0%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 564maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1major+178minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Perhaps I screwed up my readahead() + threads path badly, but there
seems to be a huge benefit in using fadvise with my patch. I'm not sure
why readahead() + thread does so badly, even...
Even if I badly screwed up my use of readahead(), the benefit of my
patch spares others from screwing up when using threads+readahead() :)
FULL_READ
---------
While full, fast reads are not my target use case, there's no noticeable
regression here, either. Results for doing a full, fast read on the file
are closer and fluctuate more between runs.
# readahead + pthread.
$ FULL_READ=1 EARLY_EXIT=1 RA=1 time ./first_read 1G
0.01user 1.10system 0:09.24elapsed 12%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 596maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1major+186minor)pagefaults 0swaps
# patched fadvise
FULL_READ=1 EARLY_EXIT=1 time ./first_read 1G
0.01user 1.04system 0:09.22elapsed 11%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 564maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1major+178minor)pagefaults 0swaps
--------------------------------- 8< ------------------------------
/* gcc -O2 -Wall -lpthread -o first_read first_read.c */
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <sched.h>
#include <sys/eventfd.h>
static int efd1;
static int efd2;
static void * start_ra(void *unused)
{
struct stat st;
eventfd_t val;
int fd;
/* tell parent to open() */
assert(eventfd_write(efd1, 1) == 0);
/* wait for parent to tell us fd is ready */
assert(eventfd_read(efd2, &val) == 0);
fd = (int)val;
assert(fstat(fd, &st) == 0);
assert(readahead(fd, 0, st.st_size) == 0);
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
char buf[16384];
pthread_t thr;
int fd;
char *do_ra = getenv("RA");
if (argc != 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: strace -T %s LARGE_FILE\n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
if (do_ra) {
eventfd_t val;
efd1 = eventfd(0, 0);
efd2 = eventfd(0, 0);
assert(efd1 >= 0 && efd2 >= 0 && "eventfd failed");
assert(pthread_create(&thr, NULL, start_ra, NULL) == 0);
/* wait for child thread to spawn */
assert(eventfd_read(efd1, &val) == 0);
}
fd = open(argv[1], O_RDONLY);
assert(fd >= 0 && "open failed");
if (do_ra) {
/* wake up the child thread, give it a chance to run */
assert(eventfd_write(efd2, fd) == 0);
sched_yield();
} else
assert(posix_fadvise(fd, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED) == 0);
assert(pread(fd, buf, sizeof(buf), 0) == sizeof(buf));
if (getenv("FULL_READ")) {
ssize_t r;
do {
r = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
} while (r > 0);
assert(r == 0 && "EOF not reached");
}
if (getenv("EXIT_EARLY"))
_exit(0);
if (do_ra) {
assert(pthread_join(thr, NULL) == 0);
assert(close(efd1) == 0);
assert(close(efd2) == 0);
}
assert(close(fd) == 0);
return 0;
}
--------------------------------- 8< ------------------------------
Thanks for your interest in this!
--
Eric Wong
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fadvise: perform WILLNEED readahead in a workqueue
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:25:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121216002549.GA19402@dcvr.yhbt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121215223448.08272fd5@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:54:48 +0000
> Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
>
> > Applications streaming large files may want to reduce disk spinups and
> > I/O latency by performing large amounts of readahead up front
>
> How does it compare benchmark wise with a user thread or using the
> readahead() call ?
Very well.
My main concern is for the speed of the initial pread()/read() call
after open().
Setting EARLY_EXIT means my test program _exit()s immediately after the
first pread(). In my test program (below), I wait for the background
thread to become ready before open() so I would not take overhead from
pthread_create() into account.
RA=1 uses a pthread + readahead()
Not setting RA uses fadvise (with my patch)
# readahead + pthread.
$ EARLY_EXIT=1 RA=1 time ./first_read 1G
0.00user 0.05system 0:01.37elapsed 3%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 600maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1major+187minor)pagefaults 0swaps
# patched fadvise
$ EARLY_EXIT=1 time ./first_read 1G
0.00user 0.00system 0:00.01elapsed 0%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 564maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1major+178minor)pagefaults 0swaps
Perhaps I screwed up my readahead() + threads path badly, but there
seems to be a huge benefit in using fadvise with my patch. I'm not sure
why readahead() + thread does so badly, even...
Even if I badly screwed up my use of readahead(), the benefit of my
patch spares others from screwing up when using threads+readahead() :)
FULL_READ
---------
While full, fast reads are not my target use case, there's no noticeable
regression here, either. Results for doing a full, fast read on the file
are closer and fluctuate more between runs.
# readahead + pthread.
$ FULL_READ=1 EARLY_EXIT=1 RA=1 time ./first_read 1G
0.01user 1.10system 0:09.24elapsed 12%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 596maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1major+186minor)pagefaults 0swaps
# patched fadvise
FULL_READ=1 EARLY_EXIT=1 time ./first_read 1G
0.01user 1.04system 0:09.22elapsed 11%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 564maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (1major+178minor)pagefaults 0swaps
--------------------------------- 8< ------------------------------
/* gcc -O2 -Wall -lpthread -o first_read first_read.c */
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <sched.h>
#include <sys/eventfd.h>
static int efd1;
static int efd2;
static void * start_ra(void *unused)
{
struct stat st;
eventfd_t val;
int fd;
/* tell parent to open() */
assert(eventfd_write(efd1, 1) == 0);
/* wait for parent to tell us fd is ready */
assert(eventfd_read(efd2, &val) == 0);
fd = (int)val;
assert(fstat(fd, &st) == 0);
assert(readahead(fd, 0, st.st_size) == 0);
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
char buf[16384];
pthread_t thr;
int fd;
char *do_ra = getenv("RA");
if (argc != 2) {
fprintf(stderr, "Usage: strace -T %s LARGE_FILE\n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
if (do_ra) {
eventfd_t val;
efd1 = eventfd(0, 0);
efd2 = eventfd(0, 0);
assert(efd1 >= 0 && efd2 >= 0 && "eventfd failed");
assert(pthread_create(&thr, NULL, start_ra, NULL) == 0);
/* wait for child thread to spawn */
assert(eventfd_read(efd1, &val) == 0);
}
fd = open(argv[1], O_RDONLY);
assert(fd >= 0 && "open failed");
if (do_ra) {
/* wake up the child thread, give it a chance to run */
assert(eventfd_write(efd2, fd) == 0);
sched_yield();
} else
assert(posix_fadvise(fd, 0, 0, POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED) == 0);
assert(pread(fd, buf, sizeof(buf), 0) == sizeof(buf));
if (getenv("FULL_READ")) {
ssize_t r;
do {
r = read(fd, buf, sizeof(buf));
} while (r > 0);
assert(r == 0 && "EOF not reached");
}
if (getenv("EXIT_EARLY"))
_exit(0);
if (do_ra) {
assert(pthread_join(thr, NULL) == 0);
assert(close(efd1) == 0);
assert(close(efd2) == 0);
}
assert(close(fd) == 0);
return 0;
}
--------------------------------- 8< ------------------------------
Thanks for your interest in this!
--
Eric Wong
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-16 0:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-15 0:54 [PATCH] fadvise: perform WILLNEED readahead in a workqueue Eric Wong
2012-12-15 0:54 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-15 22:34 ` Alan Cox
2012-12-15 22:34 ` Alan Cox
2012-12-16 0:25 ` Eric Wong [this message]
2012-12-16 0:25 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:03 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 3:03 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 3:35 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:35 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 4:15 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 4:15 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 5:23 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 5:23 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 21:31 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 21:31 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 8:48 ` Zheng Liu
2012-12-16 8:48 ` Zheng Liu
2012-12-16 2:45 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 2:45 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 3:04 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:04 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:09 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:09 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:36 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 3:36 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 3:59 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 3:59 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 4:26 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 4:26 ` Dave Chinner
2012-12-16 5:17 ` Eric Wong
2012-12-16 5:17 ` Eric Wong
2013-02-22 16:45 ` Phillip Susi
2013-02-22 16:45 ` Phillip Susi
2013-02-22 21:13 ` Eric Wong
2013-02-22 21:13 ` Eric Wong
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=20121216002549.GA19402@dcvr.yhbt.net \
--to=normalperson@yhbt.net \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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.