Re: btrfs: why default 4M readahead size?

[Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>]

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:22:11PM +0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19 2010, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 08:59:48AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 08:53:13PM +0800, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:42:57AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > > > > Btrfs uses below equation to calculate ra_pages:
> > > > > 	fs_info->bdi.ra_pages = max(fs_info->bdi.ra_pages,
> > > > >               		4 * 1024 * 1024 / PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
> > > > > is the max() a typo of min()? This makes the readahead size is 4M by default,
> > > > > which is too big.
> > > > 
> > > > Looks like things have changed since I tuned that number.  Fengguang has
> > > > been busy ;)
> > > > 
> > > > > I have a system with 16 CPU, 6G memory and 12 sata disks. I create a btrfs for
> > > > > each disk, so this isn't a raid setup. The test is fio, which has 12 tasks to
> > > > > access 12 files for each disk. The fio test is mmap sequential read. I measure
> > > > > the performance with different readahead size:
> > > > > ra size		io throughput
> > > > > 4M		268288 k/s
> > > > > 2M		367616 k/s
> > > > > 1M		431104 k/s
> > > > > 512K		474112 k/s
> > > > > 256K		512000 k/s
> > > > > 128K		538624 k/s
> > > > > The 4M default readahead size has poor performance.
> > > > > I also does sync sequential read test, the test difference in't that big. But
> > > > > the 4M case still has about 10% drop compared to the 512k case.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm surprised the 4M is so much slower.  At any rate, the larger size
> > > > was selected because btrfs checksumming means we need a bigger buffer to
> > > > keep the disks saturated.  Were you on a fancy intel box with hardware
> > > > crc32c enabled?
> > > yes, this machine supports sse4.2 instruction. Let me check the result with checksum
> > > disabled.
> > Sounds no big difference with checksum disabled. I format the disks and redo
> > the test:
> > 128k ra: 539648 k/s
> > 4m ra: 285696 k/s
> 
> 4MB is definitely a huge read-ahead size, but I do wonder why it would
> perform that much worse than a 128KB window. If you narrow your test
> down to a single disk (or something simpler, at least), how does 4MB
> compare to 128KB? With 6GB of memory, you should not run into read-ahead
> memory thrashing.
test data for a single disk(just run one time so far):
128k ra: 88513k/s
4m ra:87630k/s
so no big difference.

Thanks,
Shaohua