From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79E7C61DA4 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 08:34:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229563AbjBIIe5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2023 03:34:57 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48358 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229689AbjBIIex (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2023 03:34:53 -0500 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8F3C5268; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 00:34:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71AAE5C418; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 08:34:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1675931690; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0Hs1j4bTLbv5D9D4pDF8ynNWBCsg/djQgRo/zhSzDBg=; b=yXMTB+0Ex4MbCziSdoktH+gNgY5VhyqqQFu34VkpZoHZ5yN+x2haGp88V5sW/1JTI7fAj+ x7n0V7f2+Ktlp97NNGcEARItltV7f06+Il/lU3J+4oIauRR2C9IO1Uq8By6AusvhTwmdqW gMyAqa4j3fJF+e7xd2I86RzMjn9RuJw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1675931690; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0Hs1j4bTLbv5D9D4pDF8ynNWBCsg/djQgRo/zhSzDBg=; b=xTHlMFyMGBGuBbbfHn3vvhsmPEjWBMgYL+nA4esGLEQtU+D63JqXcGzCIg8wetK2zVpx1t EK35x9t/msb0qxBw== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6438613A1F; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 08:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id vMptGCqw5GPhFAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Thu, 09 Feb 2023 08:34:50 +0000 Received: by quack3.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E376FA06D8; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:34:49 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2023 09:34:49 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: "Bhatnagar, Rishabh" Cc: Jan Kara , tytso@mit.edu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, abuehaze@amazon.com Subject: Re: EXT4 IOPS degradation between 4.14 and 5.10 Message-ID: <20230209083449.ibmskbri5noojh4u@quack3> References: <053b60a6-133e-5d59-0732-464d5160772a@amazon.com> <20230126093231.ujn6yaxhexwzizp5@quack3> <20230127121721.lerrb36nhj7gdiwm@quack3> <6a0fcca5-b869-ffb7-426b-b49a6782c1c0@amazon.com> <20230208140247.rt62xdtriopfdb4o@quack3> <1c134792-1763-8c92-6516-78a330d4756e@amazon.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1c134792-1763-8c92-6516-78a330d4756e@amazon.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Wed 08-02-23 11:17:21, Bhatnagar, Rishabh wrote: > > > > > > > + /* > > > > > > > + * We come here when we got at @end. We take care to not overflow the > > > > > > > + * index @index as it confuses some of the callers. This breaks the > > > > > > > + * iteration when there is page at index -1 but that is already broken > > > > > > > + * anyway. > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > + if (end == (pgoff_t)-1) > > > > > > > + *index = (pgoff_t)-1; > > > > > > > + else > > > > > > > + *index = end + 1; > > > > > > > +out: > > > > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - if (ret) > > > > > > > - *index = pages[ret - 1]->index + 1; > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From the description of the patch i didn't see any mention of this > > > > > > > functional change. > > > > > > > Was this change intentional and did help some usecase or general performance > > > > > > > improvement? > > > > > > So the change was intentional. When I was working on the series, I was > > > > > > somewhat concerned that the old code could end up in a pathological > > > > > > situation like: > > > > > > We scan range 0-1000000, find the only dirty page at index 0, return it. > > > > > > We scan range 1-1000000, find the only dirty page at index 1, return it. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > This way we end up with rather inefficient scanning and in theory malicious > > > > > > user could livelock writeback like this. That being said this was/is mostly > > > > > > a theoretical concern. > > > > > Ok so its more of a security concern. But do you think this has a latency > > > > > impact? I didn't see > > > > > much latency impact between the two sets and throughput is higher. > > > > Yes, I expect there will be latency impact but for this workload probably > > > > relatively small. I expect the expensive part on your workload is the > > > > fsync(2) call, in particular the committing of the transaction and the > > > > flushing of the disk caches as a result of that. Data writes themselves are > > > > relatively cheap. If you had say 1MB blocks instead of 16k ones, I'd expect > > > > the numbers to start looking differently as the cost of IO and of cache > > > > flushing becomes for comparable - obviously it all depends on the details > > > > of the backing storage as well. Perhaps could you measure how much time we > > > > spend in file_write_and_wait_range() calls vs in the whole ext4_sync_file() > > > > call to confirm that? > > > > > > > > Overall your tests show we could gain some throughput without sacrificing > > > > too much latency if we somehow batch tiny fsync requests more. The trick is > > > > how to do this without regressing other workloads and also across various > > > > storage types which are going to have very different properties. > > > Yeah i agree fsync is much more expensive operation than just dirtying > > > buffers in page cache. I did use the ext4dist tool from bcc to get the > > > distribution of write vs fsync. Overall fsync is much more expensive > > > operation so yeah if we can get higher throughput here with batching it > > > shouldn't impact fsync latency that much. > > Well, I was more interested in file_write_and_wait_range() vs > > ext4_sync_file() latency comparison. write(2) calls are indeed very fast > > because they just copy into the page cache so that is not very interesting. > > But file_write_and_wait_range() is more interesting because that measures > > the cost of writing file data to the disk while whole ext4_sync_file() > > measures the cost of writing file data to the disk + the cost of flushing > > the journal and I'm interested in how much is the flushing of the journal > > costly compared to the data writeback. > > Sorry i misunderstood your comment. Here is the revised data. Flushing > journal very heavy compared to flushing data. > > ext4_sync_file:       ~18.6 msecs > fdatawrite_range:   ~ 4usecs > fdatawait_range:     ~ 83.6usecs > fc_commit:             ~18.6 msecs > > Tracing 1 functions for "ext4_sync_file" > > >      nsecs               : count     distribution >    1048576 -> 2097151    : 75 |                                        | >    2097152 -> 4194303    : 1496 |****                                    | >    4194304 -> 8388607    : 3461 |**********                              | >    8388608 -> 16777215   : 6693 |********************                    | >   16777216 -> 33554431   : 13355 |****************************************| >   33554432 -> 67108863   : 1631 |****                                    | > > avg = 18624922 nsecs, total: 505778389231 nsecs, count: 27156 > > > Tracing 1 functions for "__filemap_fdatawrite_range" > >      nsecs               : count     distribution >        512 -> 1023       : 0 |                                        | >       1024 -> 2047       : 1 |**                                      | >       2048 -> 4095       : 14 |****************************************| >       4096 -> 8191       : 5 |**************                          | >       8192 -> 16383      : 1 |**                                      | > > avg = 3943 nsecs, total: 82809 nsecs, count: 21 > > Tracing 1 functions for "__filemap_fdatawait_range > >      nsecs               : count     distribution >        128 -> 255        : 0 |                                        | >        256 -> 511        : 1 |********************                    | >        512 -> 1023       : 2 |****************************************| >       1024 -> 2047       : 2 |****************************************| >       2048 -> 4095       : 0 |                                        | >       4096 -> 8191       : 0 |                                        | >       8192 -> 16383      : 0 |                                        | >      16384 -> 32767      : 0 |                                        | >      32768 -> 65535      : 0 |                                        | >      65536 -> 131071     : 0 |                                        | >     131072 -> 262143     : 0 |                                        | >     262144 -> 524287     : 1 |********************                    | > > avg = 83644 nsecs, total: 501866 nsecs, count: 6 > > Tracing 1 functions for "ext4_fc_commit > >      nsecs               : count     distribution >    1048576 -> 2097151    : 70 |                                        | >    2097152 -> 4194303    : 1512 |****                                    | >    4194304 -> 8388607    : 3436 |**********                              | >    8388608 -> 16777215   : 6699 |********************                    | >   16777216 -> 33554431   : 13349 |****************************************| >   33554432 -> 67108863   : 1641 |****                                    | > > avg = 18622010 nsecs, total: 505699318966 nsecs, count: 27156 Thanks for the data! So indeed as I suspected for your storage the transaction commit (likely due to the flushing of disk caches) costs the vast majority of time. I guess I'll try to experiment with this a bit if we can somehow achieve more batching in ext4_sync_file()... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR