All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <ljs@kernel.org>,
	"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>,
	Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
	Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mm: kick writeback flusher for IOCB_DONTCACHE with targeted dirty tracking
Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 10:44:11 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ec07180c-665a-4e78-94a4-1670a8bf8efd@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260501-dontcache-v4-2-5d5e6dc71cb3@kernel.org>

On 5/1/26 3:49 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> The IOCB_DONTCACHE writeback path in generic_write_sync() calls
> filemap_flush_range() on every write, submitting writeback inline in
> the writer's context.  Perf lock contention profiling shows the
> performance problem is not lock contention but the writeback submission
> work itself — walking the page tree and submitting I/O blocks the writer
> for milliseconds, inflating p99.9 latency from 23ms (buffered) to 93ms
> (dontcache).
> 
> Replace the inline filemap_flush_range() call with a flusher kick that
> drains dirty pages in the background.  This moves writeback submission
> completely off the writer's hot path.
> 
> To avoid flushing unrelated buffered dirty data, add a dedicated
> WB_start_dontcache bit and wb_check_start_dontcache() handler that uses
> the per-wb WB_DONTCACHE_DIRTY counter to determine how many pages to
> write back.  The flusher writes back that many pages from the oldest dirty
> inodes (not restricted to dontcache-specific inodes). This helps
> preserve I/O batching while limiting the scope of expedited writeback.
> 
> Like WB_start_all, the WB_start_dontcache bit coalesces multiple
> DONTCACHE writes into a single flusher wakeup without per-write
> allocations.
> 
> Also add WB_REASON_DONTCACHE as a new writeback reason for tracing
> visibility, and target the correct cgroup writeback domain via
> unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin().
> 
> dontcache-bench results (same host, T6F_SKL_1920GBF, 251 GiB RAM,
> xfs on NVMe, fio io_uring):
> 
> Buffered and direct I/O paths are unaffected by this patchset. All
> improvements are confined to the dontcache path:
> 
> Single-stream throughput (MB/s):
>                         Before    After    Change
>   seq-write/dontcache      298      897    +201%
>   rand-write/dontcache     131      236     +80%
> 
> Tail latency improvements (seq-write/dontcache):
>   p99:    135,266 us  ->  23,986 us   (-82%)
>   p99.9: 8,925,479 us ->  28,443 us   (-99.7%)
> 
> Multi-writer (4 jobs, sequential write):
>                                 Before    After    Change
>   dontcache aggregate (MB/s)     2,529    4,532     +79%
>   dontcache p99 (us)             8,553    1,002     -88%
>   dontcache p99.9 (us)         109,314    1,057     -99%
> 
>   Dontcache multi-writer throughput now matches buffered (4,532 vs
>   4,616 MB/s).
> 
> 32-file write (Axboe test):
>                                 Before    After    Change
>   dontcache aggregate (MB/s)     1,548    3,499    +126%
>   dontcache p99 (us)            10,170      602     -94%
>   Peak dirty pages (MB)          1,837      213     -88%
> 
>   Dontcache now reaches 81% of buffered throughput (was 35%).
> 
> Competing writers (dontcache vs buffered, separate files):
>                                 Before    After
>   buffered writer                  868      433 MB/s
>   dontcache writer                 415      433 MB/s
>   Aggregate                      1,284      866 MB/s
> 
>   Previously the buffered writer starved the dontcache writer 2:1.
>   With per-bdi_writeback tracking, both writers now receive equal
>   bandwidth. The aggregate matches the buffered-vs-buffered baseline
>   (863 MB/s), indicating fair sharing regardless of I/O mode.
> 
>   The dontcache writer's p99.9 latency collapsed from 119 ms to
>   33 ms (-73%), eliminating the severe periodic stalls seen in the
>   baseline. Both writers now share identical latency profiles,
>   matching the buffered-vs-buffered pattern.
> 
> The per-bdi_writeback dirty tracking dramatically reduces peak dirty
> pages in dontcache workloads, with the 32-file test dropping from
> 1.8 GB to 213 MB. Dontcache sequential write throughput triples and
> multi-writer throughput reaches parity with buffered I/O, with tail
> latencies collapsing by 1-2 orders of magnitude.

I like this, this is the better way to kick off the writeback.

Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2026-05-01 16:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-01  9:49 [PATCH v4 0/4] mm: improve write performance with RWF_DONTCACHE Jeff Layton
2026-05-01  9:49 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] mm: track DONTCACHE dirty pages per bdi_writeback Jeff Layton
2026-05-03 14:37   ` Jan Kara
2026-05-01  9:49 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] mm: kick writeback flusher for IOCB_DONTCACHE with targeted dirty tracking Jeff Layton
2026-05-01 16:44   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2026-05-03 14:45   ` Jan Kara
2026-05-03 18:41     ` Jeff Layton
2026-05-01  9:49 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] testing: add nfsd-io-bench NFS server benchmark suite Jeff Layton
2026-05-01  9:49 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] testing: add dontcache-bench local filesystem " Jeff Layton

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=ec07180c-665a-4e78-94a4-1670a8bf8efd@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=Liam.Howlett@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@kernel.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ljs@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=rppt@kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=willy@infradead.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.