linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Tao Ma <tm@tao.ma>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ext4 data=writeback performs worse than data=ordered now
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:02:43 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111214150243.GA25725@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4EE8B810.8040405@tao.ma>

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:52:00PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> Hi Ted/Fengguang,
> On 12/14/2011 10:30 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 09:34:00PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Shaohua recently found that ext4 writeback mode could perform worse
> >> than ordered mode in some cases. It may not be a big problem, however
> >> we'd like to share some information on our findings.
> >>
> >> I tested both 3.2 and 3.1 kernels on normal SATA disks and USB key.
> >> The interesting thing is, data=writeback used to run a bit faster
> >> than data=ordered, however situation get inverted presumably by the
> >> IO-less dirty throttling.
> > 
> > Interesting.  What sort of workloads are you using to do these
> > measurements?  How many writer threads; I assume you are doing
> > sequential writes which are extending one or more files, etc?
> > 
> > I suspect it's due to the throttling meaning that each thread is
> > getting to send less data to the disk, and so there is more seeking
> > going on with data=writeback, where as with data=ordered, at each
> > journal commit we are forcing all of the dirty pages out to disk, one
> > inode at a time, and this is resulting in a more efficient writeback
> > compared to when the writeback code is getting to make its own choices
> > about how much each inode gets to write out at at time.
> > 
> > It would be interesting to see what would happen if in
> > ext4_da_writepages(), we completely ignore how many pages are
> > requested to be written back by the writeback code, and just simply
> > write back all of the dirty pages, and see if that brings the
> > performance back.
> I guess fengguang's test is a buffer write dd test. Here we have found
> some performance regression from 18 because of the delayed allocation.
> In case of delayed allocation, we will create the extent tree during
> writepages which would delay the write because ext4_da_write_begin would
> down_read the i_data_sem to map the block while writepages would
> down_write it so we have seen some severe delay in ext4_da_write_begin
> (around 3s). And instead of increasing the page numbers of every
> writepages, some tests shows that the decrease makes the performance
> increase. I will dive into it soon to see what's going on there.
> 
> So Fengguang, would you please keep the page number in
> ext4_da_writepages passed by writeback(instead of the bumping) and check
> the result?

Sure, can you provide a patch for me to test?

Thanks,
Fengguang

  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-14 15:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-14 13:34 ext4 data=writeback performs worse than data=ordered now Wu Fengguang
     [not found] ` <20111214140025.GA19650@localhost>
2011-12-14 14:03   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-14 14:30 ` Ted Ts'o
2011-12-14 14:49   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-14 14:52   ` Tao Ma
2011-12-14 15:02     ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-12-15  1:02   ` Shaohua Li
2011-12-15  1:00     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-15  1:27       ` NeilBrown
2011-12-15  1:34         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-15  5:02         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-12-15  1:20     ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-15  1:42       ` Shaohua Li
2011-12-15 18:10         ` Darrick J. Wong
2011-12-16  1:47           ` Shaohua Li

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=20111214150243.GA25725@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    --cc=tm@tao.ma \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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).