From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>,
Kernel hackers <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ext4 hackers <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
maze@google.com, "Shi, Alex" <alex.shi@intel.com>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
Li Shaohua <shli@fusionio.com>
Subject: Re: ext4 write performance regression in 3.6-rc1 on RAID0/5
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:07:11 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120821120711.GA21736@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120821094221.GA18919@localhost>
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 05:42:21PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 06:44:57AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:25:26 +0800 Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > [CC md list]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 09:40:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 02:09:15PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > > Ted,
> > > > >
> > > > > I find ext4 write performance dropped by 3.3% on average in the
> > > > > 3.6-rc1 merge window. xfs and btrfs are fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Two machines are tested. The performance regression happens in the
> > > > > lkp-nex04 machine, which is equipped with 12 SSD drives. lkp-st02 does
> > > > > not see regression, which is equipped with HDD drives. I'll continue
> > > > > to repeat the tests and report variations.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... I've checked out the commits in "git log v3.5..v3.6-rc1 --
> > > > fs/ext4 fs/jbd2" and I don't see anything that I would expect would
> > > > cause that. The are the lock elimination changes for Direct I/O
> > > > overwrites, but that shouldn't matter for your tests which are
> > > > measuring buffered writes, correct?
> > > >
> > > > Is there any chance you could do me a favor and do a git bisect
> > > > restricted to commits involving fs/ext4 and fs/jbd2?
> > >
> > > I noticed that the regressions all happen in the RAID0/RAID5 cases.
> > > So it may be some interactions between the RAID/ext4 code?
> >
> > I'm aware of some performance regression in RAID5 which I will be drilling
> > down into next week. Some things are faster, but some are slower :-(
> >
> > RAID0 should be unchanged though - I don't think I've changed anything there.
> >
> > Looking at your numbers, JBOD ranges from +6.5% to -1.5%
> > RAID0 ranges from +4.0% to -19.2%
> > RAID5 ranges from +20.7% to -39.7%
> >
> > I'm guessing + is good and - is bad?
>
> Yes.
>
> > The RAID5 numbers don't surprise me. The RAID0 do.
>
> You are right. I did more tests and it's now obvious that RAID0 is
> mostly fine. The major regressions are in the RAID5 10/100dd cases.
> JBOD is performing better in 3.6.0-rc1 :-)
>
> > >
> > > I'll try to get some ext2/3 numbers, which should have less changes on the fs side.
> >
> > Thanks. That will be useful.
>
> Here are the more complete results.
>
> RAID5 ext4 100dd -7.3%
> RAID5 ext4 10dd -2.2%
> RAID5 ext4 1dd +12.1%
> RAID5 ext3 100dd -3.1%
> RAID5 ext3 10dd -11.5%
> RAID5 ext3 1dd +8.9%
> RAID5 ext2 100dd -10.5%
> RAID5 ext2 10dd -5.2%
> RAID5 ext2 1dd +10.0%
> RAID0 ext4 100dd +1.7%
> RAID0 ext4 10dd -0.9%
> RAID0 ext4 1dd -1.1%
> RAID0 ext3 100dd -4.2%
> RAID0 ext3 10dd -0.2%
> RAID0 ext3 1dd -1.0%
> RAID0 ext2 100dd +11.3%
> RAID0 ext2 10dd +4.7%
> RAID0 ext2 1dd -1.6%
> JBOD ext4 100dd +5.9%
> JBOD ext4 10dd +6.0%
> JBOD ext4 1dd +0.6%
> JBOD ext3 100dd +6.1%
> JBOD ext3 10dd +1.9%
> JBOD ext3 1dd +1.7%
> JBOD ext2 100dd +9.9%
> JBOD ext2 10dd +9.4%
> JBOD ext2 1dd +0.5%
And here are the xfs/btrfs results. Very impressive RAID5 improvements!
RAID5 btrfs 100dd +25.8%
RAID5 btrfs 10dd +21.3%
RAID5 btrfs 1dd +14.3%
RAID5 xfs 100dd +32.8%
RAID5 xfs 10dd +21.5%
RAID5 xfs 1dd +25.2%
RAID0 btrfs 100dd -7.4%
RAID0 btrfs 10dd -0.2%
RAID0 btrfs 1dd -2.8%
RAID0 xfs 100dd +18.8%
RAID0 xfs 10dd +0.0%
RAID0 xfs 1dd +3.8%
JBOD btrfs 100dd -0.0%
JBOD btrfs 10dd +2.3%
JBOD btrfs 1dd -0.1%
JBOD xfs 100dd +8.3%
JBOD xfs 10dd +4.1%
JBOD xfs 1dd +0.1%
Thanks,
Fengguang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-21 12:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-15 18:33 NULL pointer dereference in ext4_ext_remove_space on 3.5.1 Marti Raudsepp
2012-08-16 2:46 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-16 11:10 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-16 15:25 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-16 20:21 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2012-08-16 21:19 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-16 21:40 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2012-08-16 22:26 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-16 22:44 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2012-08-17 6:01 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-17 13:15 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-17 13:22 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-17 13:50 ` [PATCH] ext4: fix kernel BUG on large-scale rm -rf commands Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-17 17:48 ` NULL pointer dereference in ext4_ext_remove_space on 3.5.1 Christoph Hellwig
2012-08-17 20:34 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-17 21:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-08-17 22:55 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-17 23:11 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-17 6:09 ` ext4 write performance regression in 3.6-rc1 Fengguang Wu
2012-08-17 13:40 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-17 14:13 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-17 14:25 ` ext4 write performance regression in 3.6-rc1 on RAID0/5 Fengguang Wu
[not found] ` <20120817151318.GA2341@localhost>
2012-08-17 15:37 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-08-17 20:44 ` NeilBrown
2012-08-21 9:42 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-08-21 12:07 ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
[not found] ` <20120822035702.GF2570@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
2012-08-22 4:07 ` Shaohua Li
2012-08-22 6:00 ` NeilBrown
2012-08-22 6:31 ` Yuanhan Liu
2012-08-22 7:14 ` Andreas Dilger
2012-08-22 20:47 ` Dan Williams
2012-08-22 21:59 ` NeilBrown
2012-09-17 12:21 ` NULL pointer dereference in ext4_ext_remove_space on 3.5.1 Dmitry Monakhov
2012-09-17 13:52 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-09-17 14:48 ` Dmitry Monakhov
2012-08-16 9:00 ` Fengguang Wu
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=20120821120711.GA21736@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=alex.shi@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marti@juffo.org \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=shli@fusionio.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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).