From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve buffered streaming write ordering
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:11:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1223565080.14090.28.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081002234309.GH30001@disturbed>
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 09:43 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 11:48:56PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 08:20:54AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 21:52 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > For a 4.5GB streaming buffered write, this printk inside
> > > ext4_da_writepage shows up 37,2429 times in /var/log/messages.
> > >
> >
> > Part of that can happen due to shrink_page_list -> pageout -> writepagee
> > call back with lots of unallocated buffer_heads(blocks).
>
> Quite frankly, a simple streaming buffered write should *never*
> trigger writeback from the LRU in memory reclaim. That indicates
> that some feedback loop has broken down and we are not cleaning
> pages fast enough or perhaps in the correct order. Page reclaim in
> this case should be reclaiming clean pages (those that have already
> been written back), not writing back random dirty pages.
Here are some go faster stripes for the XFS buffered writeback. This
patch has a lot of debatable features to it, but the idea is to show
which knobs are slowing us down today.
The first change is to avoid calling balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited on
every page. When we know we're doing a largeish write it makes more
sense to balance things less often. This might just mean our
ratelimit_pages magic value is too small.
The second change makes xfs bump wbc->nr_to_write (suggested by
Christoph), which probably makes delalloc go in bigger chunks.
On unpatched kernels, XFS does streaming writes to my 4 drive array at
around 205MB/s. With the patch below, I come in at 326MB/s. O_DIRECT
runs at 330MB/s, so that's pretty good.
With just the nr_to_write change, I get around 315MB/s.
With just the balance_dirty_pages_nr change, I get around 240MB/s.
-chris
diff --git a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c
index a44d68e..c72bd54 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_aops.c
@@ -944,6 +944,9 @@ xfs_page_state_convert(
int trylock = 0;
int all_bh = unmapped;
+
+ wbc->nr_to_write *= 4;
+
if (startio) {
if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE && wbc->nonblocking)
trylock |= BMAPI_TRYLOCK;
diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
index 876bc59..b6c26e3 100644
--- a/mm/filemap.c
+++ b/mm/filemap.c
@@ -2389,6 +2389,7 @@ static ssize_t generic_perform_write(struct file *file,
long status = 0;
ssize_t written = 0;
unsigned int flags = 0;
+ unsigned long nr = 0;
/*
* Copies from kernel address space cannot fail (NFSD is a big user).
@@ -2460,11 +2461,17 @@ again:
}
pos += copied;
written += copied;
-
- balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(mapping);
+ nr++;
+ if (nr > 256) {
+ balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(mapping, nr);
+ nr = 0;
+ }
} while (iov_iter_count(i));
+ if (nr)
+ balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(mapping, nr);
+
return written ? written : status;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-10-09 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-01 18:40 [PATCH] Improve buffered streaming write ordering Chris Mason
2008-10-02 4:52 ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-02 12:20 ` Chris Mason
2008-10-02 16:12 ` Chris Mason
2008-10-02 18:18 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-10-02 19:44 ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-02 23:43 ` Dave Chinner
2008-10-03 19:45 ` Chris Mason
2008-10-06 10:16 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-10-06 14:21 ` Chris Mason
2008-10-07 8:45 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-10-07 9:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-10-07 10:02 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-10-07 13:29 ` Theodore Tso
2008-10-07 13:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-10-07 14:46 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-07 13:55 ` Peter Staubach
2008-10-07 14:38 ` Chuck Lever
2008-10-09 15:11 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2008-10-10 5:13 ` Dave Chinner
2008-10-03 1:11 ` Chris Mason
2008-10-03 2:43 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03 12:07 ` Chris Mason
2008-10-02 18:08 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
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=1223565080.14090.28.camel@think.oraclecorp.com \
--to=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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).