All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>
To: "Lukáš Czerner" <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	kdorfman@codeaurora.org, merez@codeaurora.org,
	Dolev Raviv <draviv@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: Quadrant write performance degradation - kernel3.10 vs kernel3.4
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:36:15 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140620023615.GA21301@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1406170949020.2148@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 09:52:46AM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 
> > Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:20:09 -0700
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > To: Tanya Brokhman <tlinder@codeaurora.org>
> > Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
> >     kdorfman@codeaurora.org, merez@codeaurora.org,
> >     Dolev Raviv <draviv@codeaurora.org>
> > Subject: Re: Quadrant write performance degradation - kernel3.10 vs kernel3.4
> > 
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 09:02:08AM +0300, Tanya Brokhman wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > Recently we encountered a performance degradation on 3.10kernel
> > > based build, compared to 3.4 based one, when running the fs_write
> > > Quadrant benchmark.
> > > We profiled the test and came to the conclusion that the root cause
> > > of the degradation is in the vfs_write call stack (overhead of
> > > 2611.2us is observed in 3.10 kernel compared to 3.4):
> > > 
> > > ret_fast_syscall
> > > SyS_write
> > > vfs_write (total time spent: 3.10kernel-21295us, 3.4kernel-18683.79us)
> > > do_sync_write
> > > ext4_file_write
> > > generic_file_aio_write (total time spent: 3.10kernel-19124.4us,
> > > 3.4kernel-16815us)
> > > __generic_file_aio_write
> > > generic_file_buffered_write
> > > ext4_da_write_begin (total time spent: 3.10kernel-10935.2us,
> > > 3.4kernel-8444.6us)
> > > __block_write_begin
> > > ext4_da_get_block_prep (total time spent: 3.10kernel-5402.6us,
> > > 3.4kernel-3576.8us)
> > > ext4_es_lookup_extent  (total time spent: 3.10kernel-2219.7us,
> > > 3.4kernel-0us)
[snip]
> > > 2) Extents status tracking: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/fs/ext4/extents_status.c?id=refs/tags/v3.10.42#n20
> > > “There is a cache extent for write access, so if writes are not very
> > > random, adding space operations are in O(1) time.”
> > 
> > I'm no expert on the extent status cache, but this seems like a possible cause.
> 
> Exactly, there has been some fixes since the introduction of extent
> status tree, however I've noticed some performance going down as
> well and I believe that extent status tree is to blame.
> 
> AFAIK you can not turn it off in any way, but there might be some
> way to test it's overhead. Zheng, do you have any suggestions ?

Sigh, sorry for the delay reply.

Lukas, Could you please share your test with me?  From the calltrace it
seems that the latency is in ext4_da_get_block_prep.  It is not easy to
disable ext4_es_lookup_extent() because we need to lookup delayed extent
from extent status tree and determine whether or not we need to reserve
some disk spaces.

Tanya, I really appreciate if you can disable delalloc and re-run your
test.  You can use the following command to turn off the delalloc
feature.

 $ sudo mount -t ext4 -o remount,nodelalloc ${DEV} ${MNT}

Thanks,
                                                - Zheng

> 
> Thanks!
> -Lukas
> 
> > 
> > --D
> > > 
> > > We tried pick up several performance-enhancement patches from the
> > > community, released between 3.10 and 3.14 kernel versions. The
> > > performance was almost the same.
> > > 
> > > I was wondering what performance tests were performed on these
> > > features? Has anyone encountered same issue?
> > > 
> > > Best Regards
> > > Tanya Brokhman
> > > -- 
> > > QUALCOMM ISRAEL, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
> > > of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2014-06-20  2:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-06-16  6:02 Quadrant write performance degradation - kernel3.10 vs kernel3.4 Tanya Brokhman
2014-06-16 19:20 ` Darrick J. Wong
2014-06-17  7:52   ` Lukáš Czerner
2014-06-20  2:36     ` Zheng Liu [this message]
2014-07-01  7:07       ` Dolev Raviv

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=20140620023615.GA21301@gmail.com \
    --to=gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=draviv@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=kdorfman@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=merez@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=tlinder@codeaurora.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.