linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, xfs <xfs@oss.sgi.com>,
	jack <jack@suse.cz>, axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: buffered writeback torture program
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:35:47 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110421153547.GF8192@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1303399343-sup-9292@think>

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:25:41AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-04-21 07:09:11 -0400:
> > Excerpts from Vivek Goyal's message of 2011-04-20 18:06:26 -0400:
> > > > 
> > > > In this case the 128s spent in write was on a single 4K overwrite on a
> > > > 4K file.
> > > 
> > > Chris, You seem to be doing 1MB (32768*32) writes on fsync file instead of 4K.
> > > I changed the size to 4K still not much difference though.
> > 
> > Whoops, I had that change made locally but didn't get it copied out.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Once the program has exited because of high write time, i restarted it and
> > > this time I don't see high write times.
> > 
> > I see this for some of my runs as well.
> > 
> > > 
> > > First run
> > > ---------
> > > # ./a.out 
> > > setting up random write file
> > > done setting up random write file
> > > starting fsync run
> > > starting random io!
> > > write time: 0.0006s fsync time: 0.3400s
> > > write time: 63.3270s fsync time: 0.3760s
> > > run done 2 fsyncs total, killing random writer
> > > 
> > > Second run
> > > ----------
> > > # ./a.out 
> > > starting fsync run
> > > starting random io!
> > > write time: 0.0006s fsync time: 0.5359s
> > > write time: 0.0007s fsync time: 0.3559s
> > > write time: 0.0009s fsync time: 0.3113s
> > > write time: 0.0008s fsync time: 0.4336s
> > > write time: 0.0009s fsync time: 0.3780s
> > > write time: 0.0008s fsync time: 0.3114s
> > > write time: 0.0009s fsync time: 0.3225s
> > > write time: 0.0009s fsync time: 0.3891s
> > > write time: 0.0009s fsync time: 0.4336s
> > > write time: 0.0009s fsync time: 0.4225s
> > > write time: 0.0009s fsync time: 0.4114s
> > > write time: 0.0007s fsync time: 0.4004s
> > > 
> > > Not sure why would that happen.
> > > 
> > > I am wondering why pwrite/fsync process was throttled. It did not have any
> > > pages in page cache and it shouldn't have hit the task dirty limits. Does that
> > > mean per task dirty limit logic does not work or I am completely missing
> > > the root cause of the problem.
> > 
> > I haven't traced it to see.  This test box only has 1GB of ram, so the
> > dirty ratios can be very tight.
> 
> Oh, I see now.  The test program first creates the file with a big
> streaming write.  So the task doing the streaming writes gets nailed
> with the per-task dirty accounting because it is making a ton of dirty
> data.
> 
> Then the task forks the random writer to do all the random IO.
> 
> Then the original pid goes back to do the fsyncs on the new file.
> 
> So, in the original run, we get stuffed into balance_dirty_pages because
> the per-task limits show we've done a lot of dirties.
> 
> In all later runs, the file already exists, so our fsyncing process
> hasn't done much dirtying at all.  Looks like the VM is doing something
> sane, we just get nailed with big random IO.

Ok, that makes sense. So initial file creation accounted lots of buffered
IO to this process hence VM thinks it has crossed it dirty limits and later
this task comes with 4K write and gets throttled.

Thanks
Vivek

  reply	other threads:[~2011-04-21 15:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-20 18:23 buffered writeback torture program Chris Mason
2011-04-20 22:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-04-21 11:09   ` Chris Mason
2011-04-21 15:25     ` Chris Mason
2011-04-21 15:35       ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-04-21 16:55       ` Jan Kara
2011-04-21 16:57         ` Chris Mason
2011-04-21 20:44           ` Jan Kara
2011-04-21  8:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-21 17:34   ` Chris Mason
2011-04-21 17:41     ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-21 17:59       ` Andreas Dilger
2011-04-21 18:02         ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-21 18:02           ` Chris Mason
2011-04-21 18:08             ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-04-21 18:29               ` Chris Mason
2011-04-21 18:43                 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-04-21 18:47                   ` Chris Mason
2011-04-21 18:00       ` Chris Mason

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=20110421153547.GF8192@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /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).