From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Remove BIO_RW_SYNCIO flag from kcopyd
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:17:25 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101119221725.GA25730@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010242101590.6231@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>
Hi Mikulas,
On Sun, Oct 24 2010 at 9:02pm -0400,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> Remove BIO_RW_SYNCIO flag from kcopyd
>
> This improves write throughput twice when writing to the origin with snapshot
> on the same device.
Can you please be more specific on the performance improvement you
observed? You're saying something like: baseline=10MB/s patched=20MB/s?
Did you use a larger chunk_size for the snapshot device (e.g. 512K)?
I can't reproduce such significant performance improvements but my testbed
may be overly constrained (I'm passing an entire disk from host into KVM
guest using virtio). I can look to test on bare metal early next week
(unless you have more insight that would obviate the need to do so).
> This helps for CFQ I/O scheduler that has separate queues for sync and async
> I/O, async is optimized for throughput, sync for latency.
> Reallocations are triggered by writes that are usually async, so mark it
> as async as well.
This change is at odds with a previous patch you made to reduce latency
of SYNC IO, see linux-2.6 commit:
7ff14a36159d947872870 "dm: unplug queues in threads"
So we're now trading latency for throughput? Given the concerns about
snapshot-origin throughput (on lvm-general) I think that is reasonable.
But I just want to make sure we're consciously favoring throughput over
latency (I'll likely update the patch header to explicitly say as much).
> Index: linux-2.6.36-rc7-fast/drivers/md/dm-kcopyd.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.36-rc7-fast.orig/drivers/md/dm-kcopyd.c 2010-10-07 16:09:13.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.36-rc7-fast/drivers/md/dm-kcopyd.c 2010-10-15 03:18:52.000000000 +0200
> @@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ static int run_io_job(struct kcopyd_job
> {
> int r;
> struct dm_io_request io_req = {
> - .bi_rw = job->rw | REQ_SYNC | REQ_UNPLUG,
> + .bi_rw = job->rw | REQ_UNPLUG,
> .mem.type = DM_IO_PAGE_LIST,
> .mem.ptr.pl = job->pages,
> .mem.offset = job->offset,
>
> --
> dm-devel mailing list
> dm-devel@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-19 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-25 1:02 [PATCH] Remove BIO_RW_SYNCIO flag from kcopyd Mikulas Patocka
2010-11-19 22:17 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2010-11-22 13:45 ` Mikulas Patocka
2010-11-23 23:31 ` [PATCH v2] dm kcopyd: remove SYNC from flags used in dm_io_request Mike Snitzer
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=20101119221725.GA25730@redhat.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=mpatocka@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).