[RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

Hi,

Here is my first cut at adding writepages() support for
ext3 writeback mode.

I have not done any performance analysis on the patch, 
so try it at your own risk.

Please let me know, if I am completely off or its a
stupid idea.

Thanks,
Badari



[-- Attachment #2: ext3-writeback-writepages.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1559 bytes --]

--- linux-2.6.10.org/fs/ext3/inode.c	2004-12-06 11:45:49.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.10/fs/ext3/inode.c	2005-02-10 18:14:17.987263744 -0800
@@ -856,6 +856,12 @@
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int ext3_writepages_get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock,
+			struct buffer_head *bh, int create)
+{
+	return ext3_direct_io_get_blocks(inode, iblock, 1, bh, create);
+}
+
 /*
  * `handle' can be NULL if create is zero
  */
@@ -1321,6 +1327,37 @@
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int
+ext3_writeback_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, 
+				struct writeback_control *wbc)
+{
+	struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
+	handle_t *handle = NULL;
+	int err, ret = 0;
+
+	if (!mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))
+		return ret;
+
+	handle = ext3_journal_start(inode, ext3_writepage_trans_blocks(inode));
+	if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
+		ret = PTR_ERR(handle);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+        ret = mpage_writepages(mapping, wbc, ext3_writepages_get_block);
+
+	/*
+	 * Need to reaquire the handle since ext3_writepages_get_block()
+	 * can restart the handle
+	 */
+	handle = journal_current_handle();
+
+	err = ext3_journal_stop(handle);
+	if (!ret)
+		ret = err;
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static int ext3_writeback_writepage(struct page *page,
 				struct writeback_control *wbc)
 {
@@ -1552,6 +1589,7 @@
 	.readpage	= ext3_readpage,
 	.readpages	= ext3_readpages,
 	.writepage	= ext3_writeback_writepage,
+	.writepages	= ext3_writeback_writepages,
 	.sync_page	= block_sync_page,
 	.prepare_write	= ext3_prepare_write,
 	.commit_write	= ext3_writeback_commit_write,

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Andrew Morton]

Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>  Here is my first cut at adding writepages() support for
>  ext3 writeback mode.

Looks sane from a brief scan.

>  I have not done any performance analysis on the patch, 

Please do ;)

>  +static int ext3_writepages_get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock,
>  +			struct buffer_head *bh, int create)
>  +{
>  +	return ext3_direct_io_get_blocks(inode, iblock, 1, bh, create);
>  +}

yup.

>  +
>   /*
>    * `handle' can be NULL if create is zero
>    */
>  @@ -1321,6 +1327,37 @@
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
>  +static int
>  +ext3_writeback_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, 
>  +				struct writeback_control *wbc)
>  +{
>  +	struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
>  +	handle_t *handle = NULL;
>  +	int err, ret = 0;
>  +
>  +	if (!mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))
>  +		return ret;
>  +
>  +	handle = ext3_journal_start(inode, ext3_writepage_trans_blocks(inode));
>  +	if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
>  +		ret = PTR_ERR(handle);
>  +		return ret;
>  +	}
>  +
>  +        ret = mpage_writepages(mapping, wbc, ext3_writepages_get_block);
>  +

Funny whitespace.  What is it with you IBM guys? ;)

>  +	/*
>  +	 * Need to reaquire the handle since ext3_writepages_get_block()
>  +	 * can restart the handle
>  +	 */
>  +	handle = journal_current_handle();
>  +
>  +	err = ext3_journal_stop(handle);
>  +	if (!ret)
>  +		ret = err;
>  +	return ret;
>  +}

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> Here is my first cut at adding writepages() support for
>> ext3 writeback mode.
> 
> 
> Looks sane from a brief scan.

Well, not really..

mpage_writepages() could end up calling ext3_writeback_writepage()
in "confused" case thro ..

	*ret = page->mapping->a_ops->writepage(page, wbc);

which ends up doing nothing and leaves the page dirty, since there is 
journal handle started :(

	if (ext3_journal_current_handle())
		goto out_fail;

Ideas ?

Thanks,
Badari

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 232 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

Due to lack of interesting suggestions to solve 
mpage_writepages() -> ext3_writeback_writepage() problem,
I fixed it in the dumbest possible way.

Please don't kill me :)

Let me know, what you think.

Thanks,
Badari



[-- Attachment #2: ext3-writeback-writepages.patch2 --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 5022 bytes --]

diff -Naurp linux-2.6.10/include/linux/fs.h linux-2.6.10.new/include/linux/fs.h
--- linux-2.6.10/include/linux/fs.h	2004-12-24 13:34:27.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.10.new/include/linux/fs.h	2005-02-11 15:39:12.000000000 -0800
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ struct poll_table_struct;
 struct kstatfs;
 struct vm_area_struct;
 struct vfsmount;
+struct writeback_control;
 
 /*
  * It's silly to have NR_OPEN bigger than NR_FILE, but you can change
@@ -244,6 +245,8 @@ typedef int (get_blocks_t)(struct inode 
 			struct buffer_head *bh_result, int create);
 typedef void (dio_iodone_t)(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
 			ssize_t bytes, void *private);
+typedef int (writepage_t)(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc);
 
 /*
  * Attribute flags.  These should be or-ed together to figure out what
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.10/include/linux/mpage.h linux-2.6.10.new/include/linux/mpage.h
--- linux-2.6.10/include/linux/mpage.h	2004-12-24 13:34:32.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.10.new/include/linux/mpage.h	2005-02-11 15:40:26.000000000 -0800
@@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ int mpage_readpages(struct address_space
 int mpage_readpage(struct page *page, get_block_t get_block);
 int mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
 		struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block);
+int __mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
+		struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block,
+		writepage_t writepage);
 
 static inline int
 generic_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, struct writeback_control *wbc)
--- linux-2.6.10/fs/mpage.c	2004-12-24 13:34:26.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.10.new/fs/mpage.c	2005-02-11 16:14:39.338838584 -0800
@@ -387,7 +387,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mpage_readpage);
  */
 static struct bio *
 mpage_writepage(struct bio *bio, struct page *page, get_block_t get_block,
-	sector_t *last_block_in_bio, int *ret, struct writeback_control *wbc)
+	sector_t *last_block_in_bio, int *ret, struct writeback_control *wbc,
+	writepage_t writepage_helper)
 {
 	struct address_space *mapping = page->mapping;
 	struct inode *inode = page->mapping->host;
@@ -580,7 +581,7 @@ alloc_new:
 confused:
 	if (bio)
 		bio = mpage_bio_submit(WRITE, bio);
-	*ret = page->mapping->a_ops->writepage(page, wbc);
+	*ret = writepage_helper(page, wbc);
 	/*
 	 * The caller has a ref on the inode, so *mapping is stable
 	 */
@@ -619,6 +620,15 @@ int
 mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
 		struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block)
 {
+	return __mpage_writepages(mapping, wbc, get_block,
+			 mapping->a_ops->writepage);
+}
+
+int
+__mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
+		struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block,
+		writepage_t writepage_helper)
+{
 	struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
 	struct bio *bio = NULL;
 	sector_t last_block_in_bio = 0;
@@ -707,7 +717,8 @@ retry:
 				}
 			} else {
 				bio = mpage_writepage(bio, page, get_block,
-						&last_block_in_bio, &ret, wbc);
+						&last_block_in_bio, &ret, wbc,
+						writepage_helper);
 			}
 			if (ret || (--(wbc->nr_to_write) <= 0))
 				done = 1;
@@ -735,3 +746,4 @@ retry:
 	return ret;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(mpage_writepages);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mpage_writepages);
--- linux-2.6.10/fs/ext3/inode.c	2004-12-24 13:35:01.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-2.6.10.new/fs/ext3/inode.c	2005-02-11 16:16:02.566186104 -0800
@@ -856,6 +856,12 @@ get_block:
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int ext3_writepages_get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock,
+			struct buffer_head *bh, int create)
+{
+	return ext3_direct_io_get_blocks(inode, iblock, 1, bh, create);
+}
+
 /*
  * `handle' can be NULL if create is zero
  */
@@ -1321,6 +1327,44 @@ out_fail:
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int ext3_writeback_writepage_helper(struct page *page,
+				struct writeback_control *wbc)
+{
+	return block_write_full_page(page, ext3_get_block, wbc);
+}
+
+static int
+ext3_writeback_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, 
+				struct writeback_control *wbc)
+{
+	struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
+	handle_t *handle = NULL;
+	int err, ret = 0;
+
+	if (!mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))
+		return ret;
+
+	handle = ext3_journal_start(inode, ext3_writepage_trans_blocks(inode));
+	if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
+		ret = PTR_ERR(handle);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	ret = __mpage_writepages(mapping, wbc, ext3_writepages_get_block,
+					ext3_writeback_writepage_helper);
+
+	/*
+	 * Need to reaquire the handle since ext3_writepages_get_block()
+	 * can restart the handle
+	 */
+	handle = journal_current_handle();
+
+	err = ext3_journal_stop(handle);
+	if (!ret)
+		ret = err;
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static int ext3_writeback_writepage(struct page *page,
 				struct writeback_control *wbc)
 {
@@ -1552,6 +1596,7 @@ static struct address_space_operations e
 	.readpage	= ext3_readpage,
 	.readpages	= ext3_readpages,
 	.writepage	= ext3_writeback_writepage,
+	.writepages	= ext3_writeback_writepages,
 	.sync_page	= block_sync_page,
 	.prepare_write	= ext3_prepare_write,
 	.commit_write	= ext3_writeback_commit_write,

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Andrew Morton]

Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Due to lack of interesting suggestions to solve 
> mpage_writepages() -> ext3_writeback_writepage() problem,
> I fixed it in the dumbest possible way.

I've actually forgotten what the problem was.  It was 100 patches ago :(

> Let me know, what you think.


If it works, let's get some benchmark numbers so we can decide whether it
justifies more development?

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 15:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Due to lack of interesting suggestions to solve 
> > mpage_writepages() -> ext3_writeback_writepage() problem,
> > I fixed it in the dumbest possible way.
> 
> I've actually forgotten what the problem was.  It was 100 patches ago :(

The problem was 
	ext3_writeback_writepages() -> mpage_writepages() could
call back ext3_writeback_writepage() in the "confused" case.
ext3_writeback_writepage() could end up doing nothing, since the
we already have a journal handle.

I added a writepage_helper to handle this case.

> 
> > Let me know, what you think.
> 
> 
> If it works, let's get some benchmark numbers so we can decide whether it
> justifies more development?
> 

Yep. I will get some numbers to see ..

Thanks,
Badari

Re: Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Sonny Rao]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 04:09:46PM -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 15:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Due to lack of interesting suggestions to solve 
> > > mpage_writepages() -> ext3_writeback_writepage() problem,
> > > I fixed it in the dumbest possible way.
> > 
> > I've actually forgotten what the problem was.  It was 100 patches ago :(
> 
> The problem was 
> 	ext3_writeback_writepages() -> mpage_writepages() could
> call back ext3_writeback_writepage() in the "confused" case.
> ext3_writeback_writepage() could end up doing nothing, since the
> we already have a journal handle.
> 
> I added a writepage_helper to handle this case.
> 
> > 
> > > Let me know, what you think.
> > 
> > 
> > If it works, let's get some benchmark numbers so we can decide whether it
> > justifies more development?
> > 
> 
> Yep. I will get some numbers to see ..
> 

I'm helping Badari collecting data on this...

My setup is a P4 2.0Ghz booted with 1GB of RAM and 1 cpu attached via
Fiber to a seven disk raid0 array with write-caching turned off
(write-cacheing can skew numbers significantly if you aren't careful
to let the cache drain between runs, etc.) 

The test is a single-threaded sequential overwrite of a 20GB data set
divided into 512MB files which are selected randomly and overwritten.

All of these numbers represent the average of three five-minute runs.

All ext3 tests are in writeback mode

FS		Throughput	Cpu Utilizaiton
--		----------	---------------
Ext3		78 MB/sec	75.9 %
Ext3 + wpages	85 MB/sec	74.7 %

Just for comparison:

Ext2		88.5 MB/sec	74.2 %
Ext2 + nobh	89.6 MB/sec	71.7 %

JFS		94.8 MB/sec	85.6 %
XFS		100 MB/sec	95.5 %


So, Badari's writepages patch improves performance on this particular
setup by almost 10 %


I can rerun with more processors/ram, or different disk configurations
if anyone is interested.

Sonny


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click

Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Sonny Rao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2239 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:02:56PM -0500, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 04:09:46PM -0800, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 15:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Due to lack of interesting suggestions to solve 
> > > > mpage_writepages() -> ext3_writeback_writepage() problem,
> > > > I fixed it in the dumbest possible way.
> > > 
> > > I've actually forgotten what the problem was.  It was 100 patches ago :(
> > 
> > The problem was 
> > 	ext3_writeback_writepages() -> mpage_writepages() could
> > call back ext3_writeback_writepage() in the "confused" case.
> > ext3_writeback_writepage() could end up doing nothing, since the
> > we already have a journal handle.
> > 
> > I added a writepage_helper to handle this case.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > Let me know, what you think.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If it works, let's get some benchmark numbers so we can decide whether it
> > > justifies more development?
> > > 
> > 
> > Yep. I will get some numbers to see ..
> > 
> 
> I'm helping Badari collecting data on this...
> 
> My setup is a P4 2.0Ghz booted with 1GB of RAM and 1 cpu attached via
> Fiber to a seven disk raid0 array with write-caching turned off
> (write-cacheing can skew numbers significantly if you aren't careful
> to let the cache drain between runs, etc.) 
> 
> The test is a single-threaded sequential overwrite of a 20GB data set
> divided into 512MB files which are selected randomly and overwritten.
> 
> All of these numbers represent the average of three five-minute runs.
> 
> All ext3 tests are in writeback mode
> 
> FS		Throughput	Cpu Utilizaiton
> --		----------	---------------
> Ext3		78 MB/sec	75.9 %
> Ext3 + wpages	85 MB/sec	74.7 %
> 
> Just for comparison:
> 
> Ext2		88.5 MB/sec	74.2 %
> Ext2 + nobh	89.6 MB/sec	71.7 %
> 
> JFS		94.8 MB/sec	85.6 %
> XFS		100 MB/sec	95.5 %
> 
> 
> So, Badari's writepages patch improves performance on this particular
> setup by almost 10 %
> 
> 
> I can rerun with more processors/ram, or different disk configurations
> if anyone is interested.
> 
> Sonny

One other detail,

I had to fix the patch, for some reason it was malformed ?

I've attached my version of the patch.

Sonny



[-- Attachment #2: ext3-writeback-writepages.patch2-fixed --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 5168 bytes --]

diff -Naurp linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/ext3/inode.c linux-2.6.10/fs/ext3/inode.c
--- linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/ext3/inode.c	2005-01-21 00:51:27.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.10/fs/ext3/inode.c	2005-02-14 11:36:52.387332295 -0600
@@ -856,6 +856,12 @@ get_block:
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int ext3_writepages_get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock,
+			struct buffer_head *bh, int create)
+{
+	return ext3_direct_io_get_blocks(inode, iblock, 1, bh, create);
+}
+
 /*
  * `handle' can be NULL if create is zero
  */
@@ -1321,6 +1327,44 @@ out_fail:
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int ext3_writeback_writepage_helper(struct page *page,
+				struct writeback_control *wbc)
+{
+	return block_write_full_page(page, ext3_get_block, wbc);
+}
+
+static int
+ext3_writeback_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, 
+				struct writeback_control *wbc)
+{
+	struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
+	handle_t *handle = NULL;
+	int err, ret = 0;
+
+	if (!mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))
+		return ret;
+
+	handle = ext3_journal_start(inode, ext3_writepage_trans_blocks(inode));
+	if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
+		ret = PTR_ERR(handle);
+		return ret;
+	}
+
+	ret = __mpage_writepages(mapping, wbc, ext3_writepages_get_block,
+					ext3_writeback_writepage_helper);
+
+	/*
+	 * Need to reaquire the handle since ext3_writepages_get_block()
+	 * can restart the handle
+	 */
+	handle = journal_current_handle();
+
+	err = ext3_journal_stop(handle);
+	if (!ret)
+		ret = err;
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static int ext3_writeback_writepage(struct page *page,
 				struct writeback_control *wbc)
 {
@@ -1552,6 +1596,7 @@ static struct address_space_operations e
 	.readpage	= ext3_readpage,
 	.readpages	= ext3_readpages,
 	.writepage	= ext3_writeback_writepage,
+	.writepages	= ext3_writeback_writepages,
 	.sync_page	= block_sync_page,
 	.prepare_write	= ext3_prepare_write,
 	.commit_write	= ext3_writeback_commit_write,
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/mpage.c linux-2.6.10/fs/mpage.c
--- linux-2.6.10-orig/fs/mpage.c	2004-10-18 16:53:43.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.10/fs/mpage.c	2005-02-14 11:36:52.383332918 -0600
@@ -387,7 +387,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(mpage_readpage);
  */
 static struct bio *
 mpage_writepage(struct bio *bio, struct page *page, get_block_t get_block,
-	sector_t *last_block_in_bio, int *ret, struct writeback_control *wbc)
+	sector_t *last_block_in_bio, int *ret, struct writeback_control *wbc,
+	writepage_t writepage_helper)
 {
 	struct address_space *mapping = page->mapping;
 	struct inode *inode = page->mapping->host;
@@ -580,7 +581,7 @@ alloc_new:
 confused:
 	if (bio)
 		bio = mpage_bio_submit(WRITE, bio);
-	*ret = page->mapping->a_ops->writepage(page, wbc);
+	*ret = writepage_helper(page, wbc);
 	/*
 	 * The caller has a ref on the inode, so *mapping is stable
 	 */
@@ -619,6 +620,15 @@ int
 mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
 		struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block)
 {
+	return __mpage_writepages(mapping, wbc, get_block,
+			 mapping->a_ops->writepage);
+}
+
+int
+__mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
+		struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block,
+		writepage_t writepage_helper)
+{
 	struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
 	struct bio *bio = NULL;
 	sector_t last_block_in_bio = 0;
@@ -707,7 +717,8 @@ retry:
 				}
 			} else {
 				bio = mpage_writepage(bio, page, get_block,
-						&last_block_in_bio, &ret, wbc);
+						&last_block_in_bio, &ret, wbc,
+						writepage_helper);
 			}
 			if (ret || (--(wbc->nr_to_write) <= 0))
 				done = 1;
@@ -735,3 +746,4 @@ retry:
 	return ret;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(mpage_writepages);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mpage_writepages);
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.10-orig/include/linux/fs.h linux-2.6.10/include/linux/fs.h
--- linux-2.6.10-orig/include/linux/fs.h	2005-01-21 00:51:40.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.10/include/linux/fs.h	2005-02-14 11:36:19.214499355 -0600
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ struct poll_table_struct;
 struct kstatfs;
 struct vm_area_struct;
 struct vfsmount;
+struct writeback_control;
 
 /*
  * It's silly to have NR_OPEN bigger than NR_FILE, but you can change
@@ -244,6 +245,7 @@ typedef int (get_blocks_t)(struct inode 
 			struct buffer_head *bh_result, int create);
 typedef void (dio_iodone_t)(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset,
 			ssize_t bytes, void *private);
+typedef int (writepage_t)(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc);
 
 /*
  * Attribute flags.  These should be or-ed together to figure out what
diff -Naurp linux-2.6.10-orig/include/linux/mpage.h linux-2.6.10/include/linux/mpage.h
--- linux-2.6.10-orig/include/linux/mpage.h	2004-10-18 16:53:51.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.10/include/linux/mpage.h	2005-02-14 11:36:52.381333229 -0600
@@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ int mpage_readpages(struct address_space
 int mpage_readpage(struct page *page, get_block_t get_block);
 int mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
 		struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block);
+int __mpage_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
+		struct writeback_control *wbc, get_block_t get_block,
+		writepage_t writepage);
 
 static inline int
 generic_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, struct writeback_control *wbc)

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 15:58, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Due to lack of interesting suggestions to solve 
> > mpage_writepages() -> ext3_writeback_writepage() problem,
> > I fixed it in the dumbest possible way.
> 
> I've actually forgotten what the problem was.  It was 100 patches ago :(
> 
> > Let me know, what you think.
> 
> 
> If it works, let's get some benchmark numbers so we can decide whether it
> justifies more development?

Okay, here is a quick data I collected. More to follow..

Test: writes 10,000 blocks of 64k and does fdatasync().

Thanks,
Badari

BEFORE: (without writepages support)
                                                                                                       
elm3b29:/mnt # touch file
elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
real    0m23.746s user    0m0.000s sys     0m5.020s (allocation)
elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
real    0m20.950s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.278s (no alloc)
elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
real    0m21.030s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.254s (no alloc)
elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
real    0m20.577s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.184s (no alloc)
                                                                                                       
====
AFTER: (with writepages support)
                                                                                                       
elm3b29:/mnt # touch file
elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
real    0m23.230s user    0m0.001s sys     0m4.132s (allocation)
elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
real    0m20.175s user    0m0.004s sys     0m1.756s (no alloc)
elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
real    0m20.368s user    0m0.001s sys     0m1.696s (no alloc)
elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
real    0m20.626s user    0m0.002s sys     0m1.763s (no alloc)

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Andrew Morton]

Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> BEFORE: (without writepages support)
>                                                                                                        
> elm3b29:/mnt # touch file
> elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> real    0m23.746s user    0m0.000s sys     0m5.020s (allocation)
> elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> real    0m20.950s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.278s (no alloc)
> elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> real    0m21.030s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.254s (no alloc)
> elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> real    0m20.577s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.184s (no alloc)
>                                                                                                        
> ====
> AFTER: (with writepages support)
>                                                                                                        
> elm3b29:/mnt # touch file
> elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> real    0m23.230s user    0m0.001s sys     0m4.132s (allocation)
> elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> real    0m20.175s user    0m0.004s sys     0m1.756s (no alloc)
> elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> real    0m20.368s user    0m0.001s sys     0m1.696s (no alloc)
> elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> real    0m20.626s user    0m0.002s sys     0m1.763s (no alloc)

Holy cow.  I'm shocked.

There's no system CPU time involved, and the user CPU time didn't change. 
We must be getting better I/O scheduling for some reason.  I wonder what it
is?

That, or we're forgetting to write something ;)

What journalling mode were you using?
What I/O scheduler?
What sort of disk system?

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 17:00, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > BEFORE: (without writepages support)
> >                                                                                                        
> > elm3b29:/mnt # touch file
> > elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> > real    0m23.746s user    0m0.000s sys     0m5.020s (allocation)
> > elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> > real    0m20.950s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.278s (no alloc)
> > elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> > real    0m21.030s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.254s (no alloc)
> > elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> > real    0m20.577s user    0m0.001s sys     0m2.184s (no alloc)
> >                                                                                                        
> > ====
> > AFTER: (with writepages support)
> >                                                                                                        
> > elm3b29:/mnt # touch file
> > elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> > real    0m23.230s user    0m0.001s sys     0m4.132s (allocation)
> > elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> > real    0m20.175s user    0m0.004s sys     0m1.756s (no alloc)
> > elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> > real    0m20.368s user    0m0.001s sys     0m1.696s (no alloc)
> > elm3b29:/mnt # time /tmp/writer file
> > real    0m20.626s user    0m0.002s sys     0m1.763s (no alloc)
> 
> Holy cow.  I'm shocked.
> 
> There's no system CPU time involved, and the user CPU time didn't change. 
> We must be getting better I/O scheduling for some reason.  I wonder what it
> is?
> 
> That, or we're forgetting to write something ;)

I hope not.

> 
> What journalling mode were you using?

writeback mode. I hacked only writeback mode for writepages().

> What I/O scheduler?

anticipatory (2.6.10 default)


> What sort of disk system?

Simple JBOD, single disk.

Thanks,
Badari

Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Alex Tomas]

>>>>> Badari Pulavarty (BP) writes:

 BP> Test: writes 10,000 blocks of 64k and does fdatasync().

The patch doesn't apply ;) after a minor correction
I've tested the patch too:

SMP, before:
[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m17.748s user    0m0.032s sys     0m6.031s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m16.016s user    0m0.015s sys     0m3.819s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m19.074s user    0m0.014s sys     0m3.761s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m22.011s user    0m0.010s sys     0m3.773s


SMP, after:
[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m20.676s user    0m0.023s sys     0m5.643s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m13.188s user    0m0.016s sys     0m3.511s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m23.725s user    0m0.017s sys     0m3.399s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m23.684s user    0m0.013s sys     0m3.421s 



UP, after:
[root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m21.452s user    0m0.026s sys     0m6.105s

[root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m23.317s user    0m0.027s sys     0m4.206s

[root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m25.190s user    0m0.022s sys     0m4.026s

[root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m25.024s user    0m0.021s sys     0m4.103s


UP, before:
[root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m19.138s user    0m0.021s sys     0m5.980s

[root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m23.123s user    0m0.026s sys     0m4.083s

[root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m25.152s user    0m0.017s sys     0m3.836s

[root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m25.217s user    0m0.026s sys     0m3.827s




AFAICS, the patch makes sense, but in my setup it doesn't
reduce sys.time so dramatically. all my boxes are P3-based.

thanks, Alex

Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

Alex Tomas wrote:
>>>>>>Badari Pulavarty (BP) writes:
> 
> 
>  BP> Test: writes 10,000 blocks of 64k and does fdatasync().
> 
> The patch doesn't apply ;) after a minor correction
> I've tested the patch too:
> 
> SMP, before:
> [root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m17.748s user    0m0.032s sys     0m6.031s
> 
> [root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m16.016s user    0m0.015s sys     0m3.819s
> 
> [root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m19.074s user    0m0.014s sys     0m3.761s
> 
> [root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m22.011s user    0m0.010s sys     0m3.773s
> 
> 
> SMP, after:
> [root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m20.676s user    0m0.023s sys     0m5.643s
> 
> [root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m13.188s user    0m0.016s sys     0m3.511s
> 
> [root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m23.725s user    0m0.017s sys     0m3.399s
> 
> [root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m23.684s user    0m0.013s sys     0m3.421s 
> 
> 
> 
> UP, after:
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m21.452s user    0m0.026s sys     0m6.105s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m23.317s user    0m0.027s sys     0m4.206s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m25.190s user    0m0.022s sys     0m4.026s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m25.024s user    0m0.021s sys     0m4.103s
> 
> 
> UP, before:
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m19.138s user    0m0.021s sys     0m5.980s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m23.123s user    0m0.026s sys     0m4.083s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m25.152s user    0m0.017s sys     0m3.836s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m25.217s user    0m0.026s sys     0m3.827s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AFAICS, the patch makes sense, but in my setup it doesn't
> reduce sys.time so dramatically. all my boxes are P3-based.
> 
> thanks, Alex
> 
> 

Thank you for testing and confirming the results.
Is this on a simple single disk configuration ?

Thanks,
Badari

Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Alex Tomas]

>>>>> Badari Pulavarty (BP) writes:


 BP> Thank you for testing and confirming the results.
 BP> Is this on a simple single disk configuration ?

nope, the box boxes connect to 2disks raid0 via FC1.
but the disks are damn old ...

Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

Alex Tomas wrote:

>>>>>>Badari Pulavarty (BP) writes:
> 
> 
>  BP> Test: writes 10,000 blocks of 64k and does fdatasync().
> 
> The patch doesn't apply ;) after a minor correction
> I've tested the patch too:
> 
...
> UP, after:
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m21.452s user    0m0.026s sys     0m6.105s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m23.317s user    0m0.027s sys     0m4.206s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m25.190s user    0m0.022s sys     0m4.026s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m25.024s user    0m0.021s sys     0m4.103s
> 
> 
> UP, before:
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m19.138s user    0m0.021s sys     0m5.980s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m23.123s user    0m0.026s sys     0m4.083s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m25.152s user    0m0.017s sys     0m3.836s
> 
> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
> real    0m25.217s user    0m0.026s sys     0m3.827s

Hmm.. On UP, the patch made sys.time little worse ?

- Badari

Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Alex Tomas]

>>>>> Badari Pulavarty (BP) writes:

 >> UP, after:
 >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
 >> real    0m21.452s user    0m0.026s sys     0m6.105s
 >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
 >> real    0m23.317s user    0m0.027s sys     0m4.206s
 >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
 >> real    0m25.190s user    0m0.022s sys     0m4.026s
 >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
 >> real    0m25.024s user    0m0.021s sys     0m4.103s
 >> UP, before:
 >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
 >> real    0m19.138s user    0m0.021s sys     0m5.980s
 >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
 >> real    0m23.123s user    0m0.026s sys     0m4.083s
 >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
 >> real    0m25.152s user    0m0.017s sys     0m3.836s
 >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
 >> real    0m25.217s user    0m0.026s sys     0m3.827s

 BP> Hmm.. On UP, the patch made sys.time little worse ?

grrrr. sorry, that's a typo. exchange 'after' and 'before' please.
btw, want to see how delayed allocation manages this?

thanks, Alex

Re: [Ext2-devel] Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 15:29, Alex Tomas wrote:
> >>>>> Badari Pulavarty (BP) writes:
> 
>  >> UP, after:
>  >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
>  >> real    0m21.452s user    0m0.026s sys     0m6.105s
>  >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
>  >> real    0m23.317s user    0m0.027s sys     0m4.206s
>  >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
>  >> real    0m25.190s user    0m0.022s sys     0m4.026s
>  >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
>  >> real    0m25.024s user    0m0.021s sys     0m4.103s
>  >> UP, before:
>  >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
>  >> real    0m19.138s user    0m0.021s sys     0m5.980s
>  >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
>  >> real    0m23.123s user    0m0.026s sys     0m4.083s
>  >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
>  >> real    0m25.152s user    0m0.017s sys     0m3.836s
>  >> [root@zefir root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
>  >> real    0m25.217s user    0m0.026s sys     0m3.827s
> 
>  BP> Hmm.. On UP, the patch made sys.time little worse ?
> 
> grrrr. sorry, that's a typo. exchange 'after' and 'before' please.

Thank you. I was worried for a minute.

> btw, want to see how delayed allocation manages this?

Sure. I think it will improve the allocation case. 
Non-allocation case, should be pretty much same, provided
I got contiguous layout on the disk.

Isn't it ?

Thanks,
Badari

Re: Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Alex Tomas]

>>>>> Badari Pulavarty (BP) writes:
 BP> Sure. I think it will improve the allocation case. 
 BP> Non-allocation case, should be pretty much same, provided
 BP> I got contiguous layout on the disk. Isn't it ?


not allocation only:

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m13.102s user    0m0.027s sys     0m4.003s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m22.210s user    0m0.006s sys     0m3.241s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m23.242s user    0m0.005s sys     0m3.202s

[root@bob root]# time /work/tests/fwrite /test/fff 64 10000
real    0m24.777s user    0m0.011s sys     0m3.175s

I think at least couple things're involved:
 - for already allocated block I don't open a transaction
 - extents code caches last found extent, so most lookups
   just do few compares with in-inode integers and don't
   walk though a tree

btw, I've observed the following issue: sometimes vm can
run several ->writepages() against a same file or mix
->writepages() with ->writepage(). I think this can break
layout ...

thanks, Alex



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Thiago Rondon]

Can you explain more what do you wrote ?

Thanks in advanced!
-Thiago Rondon


On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:48:55 -0800 (PST), Badari Pulavarty
<pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here is my first cut at adding writepages() support for
> ext3 writeback mode.
> 
> I have not done any performance analysis on the patch,
> so try it at your own risk.
> 
> Please let me know, if I am completely off or its a
> stupid idea.
> 
> Thanks,
> Badari
> 
> 
>

Re: [RFC] ext3 writepages for writeback mode

[Badari Pulavarty]

Okay, here is the background..

writepages() interfaces gets used to flush the 
entire file. ext3 doesn't have writepages() interface.
Without the interface, the generic writepage interface
calls writepage() in a loop. Since we are operating
on one page at a time, we end up submiting one block
of IO at a time. Hopefully, IO schedulers do all the
merging needed to submit a large IO.

My patch provides, writepages() interface for ext3
writeback mode (ordered mode is little complicated).
writepages() could batch up larger IO chunks (since
it operates on multiple pages/blocks). In this case,
IO scheduler does less work.


Thanks,
Badari


On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 08:50, Thiago Rondon wrote:
> Can you explain more what do you wrote ?
> 
> Thanks in advanced!
> -Thiago Rondon
> 
> 
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:48:55 -0800 (PST), Badari Pulavarty
> <pbadari@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Here is my first cut at adding writepages() support for
> > ext3 writeback mode.
> > 
> > I have not done any performance analysis on the patch,
> > so try it at your own risk.
> > 
> > Please let me know, if I am completely off or its a
> > stupid idea.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Badari
> > 
> > 
> >
>