Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] ext4: enable large folio for regular files

[Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com>]

On 2025/5/20 18:37, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 02:33:11PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>>
>> Changes since v1:
>>  - Rebase codes on 6.15-rc6.
>>  - Drop the modifications in block_read_full_folio() which has supported
>>    by commit b72e591f74de ("fs/buffer: remove batching from async
>>    read").
>>  - Fine-tuning patch 6 without modifying the logic.
>>
>> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20241125114419.903270-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com/
>>
>> Original Description:
>>
>> Since almost all of the code paths in ext4 have already been converted
>> to use folios, there isn't much additional work required to support
>> large folios. This series completes the remaining work and enables large
>> folios for regular files on ext4, with the exception of fsverity,
>> fscrypt, and data=journal mode.
>>
>> Unlike my other series[1], which enables large folios by converting the
>> buffered I/O path from the classic buffer_head to iomap, this solution
>> is based on the original buffer_head, it primarily modifies the block
>> offset and length calculations within a single folio in the buffer
>> write, buffer read, zero range, writeback, and move extents paths to
>> support large folios, doesn't do further code refactoring and
>> optimization.
>>
>> This series have passed kvm-xfstests in auto mode several times, every
>> thing looks fine, any comments are welcome.
>>
>> About performance:
>>
>> I used the same test script from my iomap series (need to drop the mount
>> opts parameter MOUNT_OPT) [2], run fio tests on the same machine with
>> Intel Xeon Gold 6240 CPU with 400GB system ram, 200GB ramdisk and 4TB
>> nvme ssd disk. Both compared with the base and the IOMAP + large folio
>> changes.
>>
>>  == buffer read ==
>>
>>                 base          iomap+large folio base+large folio
>>  type     bs    IOPS  BW(M/s) IOPS  BW(M/s)     IOPS   BW(M/s)
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>  hole     4K  | 576k  2253  | 762k  2975(+32%) | 747k  2918(+29%)
>>  hole     64K | 48.7k 3043  | 77.8k 4860(+60%) | 76.3k 4767(+57%)
>>  hole     1M  | 2960  2960  | 4942  4942(+67%) | 4737  4738(+60%)
>>  ramdisk  4K  | 443k  1732  | 530k  2069(+19%) | 494k  1930(+11%)
>>  ramdisk  64K | 34.5k 2156  | 45.6k 2850(+32%) | 41.3k 2584(+20%)
>>  ramdisk  1M  | 2093  2093  | 2841  2841(+36%) | 2585  2586(+24%)
>>  nvme     4K  | 339k  1323  | 364k  1425(+8%)  | 344k  1341(+1%)
>>  nvme     64K | 23.6k 1471  | 25.2k 1574(+7%)  | 25.4k 1586(+8%)
>>  nvme     1M  | 2012  2012  | 2153  2153(+7%)  | 2122  2122(+5%)
>>
>>
>>  == buffer write ==
>>
>>  O: Overwrite; S: Sync; W: Writeback
>>
>>                      base         iomap+large folio    base+large folio
>>  type    O S W bs    IOPS  BW     IOPS  BW(M/s)        IOPS  BW(M/s)
>>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  cache   N N N 4K  | 417k  1631 | 440k  1719 (+5%)   | 423k  1655 (+2%)
>>  cache   N N N 64K | 33.4k 2088 | 81.5k 5092 (+144%) | 59.1k 3690 (+77%)
>>  cache   N N N 1M  | 2143  2143 | 5716  5716 (+167%) | 3901  3901 (+82%)
>>  cache   Y N N 4K  | 449k  1755 | 469k  1834 (+5%)   | 452k  1767 (+1%)
>>  cache   Y N N 64K | 36.6k 2290 | 82.3k 5142 (+125%) | 67.2k 4200 (+83%)
>>  cache   Y N N 1M  | 2352  2352 | 5577  5577 (+137%  | 4275  4276 (+82%)
>>  ramdisk N N Y 4K  | 365k  1424 | 354k  1384 (-3%)   | 372k  1449 (+2%)
>>  ramdisk N N Y 64K | 31.2k 1950 | 74.2k 4640 (+138%) | 56.4k 3528 (+81%)
>>  ramdisk N N Y 1M  | 1968  1968 | 5201  5201 (+164%) | 3814  3814 (+94%)
>>  ramdisk N Y N 4K  | 9984  39   | 12.9k 51   (+29%)  | 9871  39   (-1%)
>>  ramdisk N Y N 64K | 5936  371  | 8960  560  (+51%)  | 6320  395  (+6%)
>>  ramdisk N Y N 1M  | 1050  1050 | 1835  1835 (+75%)  | 1656  1657 (+58%)
>>  ramdisk Y N Y 4K  | 411k  1609 | 443k  1731 (+8%)   | 441k  1723 (+7%)
>>  ramdisk Y N Y 64K | 34.1k 2134 | 77.5k 4844 (+127%) | 66.4k 4151 (+95%)
>>  ramdisk Y N Y 1M  | 2248  2248 | 5372  5372 (+139%) | 4209  4210 (+87%)
>>  ramdisk Y Y N 4K  | 182k  711  | 186k  730  (+3%)   | 182k  711  (0%)
>>  ramdisk Y Y N 64K | 18.7k 1170 | 34.7k 2171 (+86%)  | 31.5k 1969 (+68%)
>>  ramdisk Y Y N 1M  | 1229  1229 | 2269  2269 (+85%)  | 1943  1944 (+58%)
>>  nvme    N N Y 4K  | 373k  1458 | 387k  1512 (+4%)   | 399k  1559 (+7%)
>>  nvme    N N Y 64K | 29.2k 1827 | 70.9k 4431 (+143%) | 54.3k 3390 (+86%)
>>  nvme    N N Y 1M  | 1835  1835 | 4919  4919 (+168%) | 3658  3658 (+99%)
>>  nvme    N Y N 4K  | 11.7k 46   | 11.7k 46   (0%)    | 11.5k 45   (-1%)
>>  nvme    N Y N 64K | 6453  403  | 8661  541  (+34%)  | 7520  470  (+17%)
>>  nvme    N Y N 1M  | 649   649  | 1351  1351 (+108%) | 885   886  (+37%)
>>  nvme    Y N Y 4K  | 372k  1456 | 433k  1693 (+16%)  | 419k  1637 (+12%)
>>  nvme    Y N Y 64K | 33.0k 2064 | 74.7k 4669 (+126%) | 64.1k 4010 (+94%)
>>  nvme    Y N Y 1M  | 2131  2131 | 5273  5273 (+147%) | 4259  4260 (+100%)
>>  nvme    Y Y N 4K  | 56.7k 222  | 56.4k 220  (-1%)   | 59.4k 232  (+5%)
>>  nvme    Y Y N 64K | 13.4k 840  | 19.4k 1214 (+45%)  | 18.5k 1156 (+38%)
>>  nvme    Y Y N 1M  | 714   714  | 1504  1504 (+111%) | 1319  1320 (+85%)
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20241022111059.2566137-1-yi.zhang@huaweicloud.com/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/3c01efe6-007a-4422-ad79-0bad3af281b1@huaweicloud.com/
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yi.
> 
> Hi Yi,
> 
> I don't see any obvious functional regressions on PowerPC with 64k
> pagesize. I know Ted has picked this up, but feel free to add:
> 
> Tested-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com> # on powerpc ps > bs
> 
> I'll give my RVBs individually, since I'm still not sure about some of
> the patches.
> 

Thank you very much for the test and review.

Best Regards,
Yi.