which local FS supports concurrent direct IO write?

[zhengda1936@gmail.com (Zheng Da)]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Raghavendra D Prabhu <
raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Zheng,
>
> Interesting analysis.
> * On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 03:17:12PM -0500, Zheng Da <
> zhengda1936 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. I was reading the code of kernel 3.0. XFS starts to support
>> concurrent direct IO since kernel 3.1.5.
>> But concurrent direct IO write still doesn't work well in kernel 3.2.
>>
> From what I have heard it has supported it from sometime back. I think you
> may need to ask in xfs general ML about this.

I didn't know this ML. I'll ask them for help.

>
>  I wrote a test program that accesses a 4G file randomly (read and write),
>> and
>> I ran it with 8 threads and the machine has 8 cores. It turns out that
>> only
>> 1 core is running. I'm pretty sure xfs_rw_ilock is locked
>> with XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED in xfs_file_dio_aio_write.
>>
>> lockstat shows me that there is a lot of wait time in ip->i_lock. It seems
>> the lock is locked exclusively.
>>              &(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock-W:         31568          36170
>>     0.24       20048.25     7589157.99         130154        3146848
>>     0.00         217.70     1238310.72
>>              &(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock-R:         11251          11886
>>     0.24       20043.01     2895595.18          46671         526309
>>     0.00          63.80      264097.96
>>              -------------------------
>>                &(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock          36170
>> [<ffffffffa03be122>] xfs_ilock+0xb2/0x110 [xfs]
>>                &(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock          11886
>> [<ffffffffa03be15a>] xfs_ilock+0xea/0x110 [xfs]
>>              -------------------------
>>                &(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock          38555
>> [<ffffffffa03be122>] xfs_ilock+0xb2/0x110 [xfs]
>>                &(&ip->i_lock)->mr_lock           9501
>> [<ffffffffa03be15a>] xfs_ilock+0xea/0x110 [xfs]
>>
>> Then I used systemtap to instrument xfs_ilock and find there are at least
>> 3
>> functions that lock ip->i_lock exclusively during write.
>>
>
> From what I saw in xfs_file_dio_aio_write code, it uses EXCL only if there
> is unaligned IO   or there are cached pages to be invalidated after shared
> lock is obtained *but* it demotes that lock to SHARED just before
> generic_file_direct_write.

 Actually, there are two locks for an inode, i_lock and i_iolock. systemtap
shows me that i_iolock is already locked to SHARED, but i_lock is locked
exclusively somewhere else. Even though I don't think I have found the
right spot that hurts concurrency so badly.

Thanks,
Da
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/pipermail/kernelnewbies/attachments/20120115/8c2ff3e1/attachment.html