From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: "Holger Hoffstätte" <holger.hoffstaette@googlemail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:01:34 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160401010134.GV11812@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pan$868e6$a5dea842$fc28bdb9$811a722b@googlemail.com>
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:56PM +0000, Holger Hoffst�tte wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Jens mentioned on Twitter I should post my experience here as well,
> so here we go.
>
> I've backported this series (incl. updates) to stable-4.4.x - not too
> difficult, minus the NVM part which I don't need anyway - and have been
> running it for the past few days without any problem whatsoever, with
> GREAT success.
>
> My use case is primarily larger amounts of stuff (transcoded movies,
> finished downloads, built Gentoo packages) that gets copied from tmpfs
> to SSD (or disk) and every time that happens, the system noticeably
> strangles readers (desktop, interactive shell). It does not really matter
> how I tune writeback via the write_expire/dirty_bytes knobs or the
> scheduler (and yes, I understand how they work); lowering the writeback
> limits helped a bit but the system is still overwhelmed. Jacking up
> deadline's writes_starved to unreasonable levels helps a bit, but in turn
> makes all writes suffer. Anything else - even tried BFQ for a while,
> which has its own unrelated problems - didn't really help either.
Can you go back to your original kernel, and lower nr_requests to 8?
Essentially all I see the block throttle doing is keeping the
request queue depth to somewhere between 8-12 requests, rather than
letting it blow out to near nr_requests (around 105-115), so it
would be interesting to note whether the block throttling has any
noticable difference in behaviour when compared to just having a
very shallow request queue....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: "Holger Hoffstätte" <holger.hoffstaette@googlemail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:01:34 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160401010134.GV11812@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pan$868e6$a5dea842$fc28bdb9$811a722b@googlemail.com>
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:09:56PM +0000, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Jens mentioned on Twitter I should post my experience here as well,
> so here we go.
>
> I've backported this series (incl. updates) to stable-4.4.x - not too
> difficult, minus the NVM part which I don't need anyway - and have been
> running it for the past few days without any problem whatsoever, with
> GREAT success.
>
> My use case is primarily larger amounts of stuff (transcoded movies,
> finished downloads, built Gentoo packages) that gets copied from tmpfs
> to SSD (or disk) and every time that happens, the system noticeably
> strangles readers (desktop, interactive shell). It does not really matter
> how I tune writeback via the write_expire/dirty_bytes knobs or the
> scheduler (and yes, I understand how they work); lowering the writeback
> limits helped a bit but the system is still overwhelmed. Jacking up
> deadline's writes_starved to unreasonable levels helps a bit, but in turn
> makes all writes suffer. Anything else - even tried BFQ for a while,
> which has its own unrelated problems - didn't really help either.
Can you go back to your original kernel, and lower nr_requests to 8?
Essentially all I see the block throttle doing is keeping the
request queue depth to somewhere between 8-12 requests, rather than
letting it blow out to near nr_requests (around 105-115), so it
would be interesting to note whether the block throttling has any
noticable difference in behaviour when compared to just having a
very shallow request queue....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-01 1:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-30 15:07 [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 1/9] writeback: propagate the various reasons for writeback Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 2/9] writeback: add wbc_to_write() Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 3/9] writeback: use WRITE_SYNC for reclaim or sync writeback Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 4/9] writeback: track if we're sleeping on progress in balance_dirty_pages() Jens Axboe
2016-04-13 13:08 ` Jan Kara
2016-04-13 14:20 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 5/9] block: add ability to flag write back caching on a device Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-30 15:46 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 16:23 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 17:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 6/9] sd: inform block layer of write cache state Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 7/9] NVMe: " Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 8/9] block: add code to track actual device queue depth Jens Axboe
2016-03-30 15:07 ` [PATCH 9/9] writeback: throttle buffered writeback Jens Axboe
2016-03-31 8:24 ` [PATCHSET v3][RFC] Make background writeback not suck Dave Chinner
2016-03-31 14:29 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-31 16:21 ` Jens Axboe
2016-04-01 0:56 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-01 3:29 ` Jens Axboe
2016-04-01 3:33 ` Jens Axboe
2016-04-01 3:39 ` Jens Axboe
2016-04-01 6:16 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-01 14:33 ` Jens Axboe
2016-04-01 5:04 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-01 0:46 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-01 3:25 ` Jens Axboe
2016-04-01 6:27 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-01 14:34 ` Jens Axboe
2016-03-31 22:09 ` Holger Hoffstätte
2016-04-01 1:01 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2016-04-01 1:01 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-01 16:58 ` Holger Hoffstätte
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=20160401010134.GV11812@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=holger.hoffstaette@googlemail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.