From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: [PATCH 0/4 v4] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:20:16 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1274206820-17071-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com> (raw)
Hi,
In this, the fourth posting of this patch series, I've addressed the following
issues:
- cfq queue yielding is now done in select_queue instead of the dispatch routine
- minor patch review comments were addressed
- the queue is now yielded to a specific task
For those not familiar with this patch set already, previous discussions
appeared here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/1/344
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/7/325
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/14/394
This patch series addresses a performance problem experienced when running
io_zone with small file sizes (from 4KB up to 8MB) and including fsync in
the timings. A good example of this would be the following command line:
iozone -s 64 -e -f /mnt/test/iozone.0 -i 0
As the file sizes get larger, the performance improves. By the time the
file size is 16MB, there is no difference in performance between runs
using CFQ and runs using deadline. The storage in my testing was a NetApp
array connected via a single fibre channel link. When testing against a
single SATA disk, the performance difference is not apparent.
fs_mark can also be used to show the performance problem using the following
example command line:
fs_mark -S 1 -D 100 -N 1000 -d /mnt/test/fs_mark -s 65536 -t 1 -w 4096
Following are some performance numbers from my testing. The below numbers
represent an average of 5 runs for each configuration when running:
iozone -s 64 -e -f /mnt/test/iozone.0 -i 0
Numbers are in KB/s.
| SATA | %diff || SAN | %diff
|write |rewrite| write |rewrite || write |rewrite| write |rewrite
------------+--------------+----------------++-------------------------------
deadline | 1452 | 1788 | 1.0 | 1.0 || 35611 | 46260 | 1.0 | 1.0
vanilla cfq | 1323 | 1330 | 0.91 | 0.74 || 6725 | 7163 | 0.19 | 0.15
patched cfq | 1591 | 1485 | 1.10 | 0.83 || 35555 | 46358 | 1.0 | 1.0
Here are some fs_mark numbers from the same storage configurations:
SATA | SAN
file/s|file/s
----------+------+------
deadline | 33.7 | 538.9
unpatched | 33.5 | 110.2
patched | 35.6 | 558.9
It's worth noting that this patch series only helps a single stream of I/O in
my testing. What I mean by that is, if you were to add a single sequential
reader into the mix, the performance of CFQ again drops for the fsync-ing
process. I fought with that for a while, but I think it is likely the subject
for another patch series.
I'd like to get some comments and performance testing feedback from others
as I'm not yet 100% convinced of the merits of this approach.
Cheers,
Jeff
[PATCH 1/4] cfq-iosched: Keep track of average think time for the sync-noidle workload.
[PATCH 2/4] block: Implement a blk_yield function to voluntarily give up the I/O scheduler.
[PATCH 3/4] jbd: yield the device queue when waiting for commits
[PATCH 4/4] jbd2: yield the device queue when waiting for journal commits
next reply other threads:[~2010-05-18 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-18 18:20 Jeff Moyer [this message]
2010-05-18 18:20 ` [PATCH 1/4] cfq-iosched: Keep track of average think time for the sync-noidle workload Jeff Moyer
2010-05-18 20:52 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-05-18 21:02 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-06-01 19:31 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-05-18 18:20 ` [PATCH 2/4] block: Implement a blk_yield function to voluntarily give up the I/O scheduler Jeff Moyer
2010-05-18 21:07 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-05-18 21:44 ` Vivek Goyal
2010-06-01 20:01 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-05-18 18:20 ` [PATCH 3/4] jbd: yield the device queue when waiting for commits Jeff Moyer
2010-05-18 18:20 ` [PATCH 4/4] jbd2: yield the device queue when waiting for journal commits Jeff Moyer
2010-05-19 2:05 ` [PATCH 0/4 v4] ext3/4: enhance fsync performance when using CFQ KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-05-26 15:33 ` Jeff Moyer
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=1274206820-17071-1-git-send-email-jmoyer@redhat.com \
--to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@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).