From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@fusionio.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH v2] block: remove plugging at buffered write time
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:40:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120413014026.GA9027@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120412142634.GA16559@quack.suse.cz>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:26:34PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi Fengguang,
>
> On Thu 12-04-12 10:20:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > > Note that plugging for O_SYNC writes is also removed. The user may pass
> > > > > > arbitrary @size arguments, which may be much larger than the preferable
> > > > > > I/O size, or may cross extent/device boundaries. Let the lower layers
> > > > > > handle the plugging. Otherwise the plugging code here will turn the
> > > > > > low level plugging into no-ops.
> > > > >
> > > > > I assume you have some numbers to back this up, right? Care to share
> > > > > those?
> > > >
> > > > Yes please.
> > > >
> > > > We've broken this stuff a few times recently - we should review and
> > > > test carefully.
> > >
> > > Yes sure. Last time I posted the patch, I did some tests and found no
> > > performance changes. Now for 3.3, the tests started days ago have not
> > > finished now (partly because it is stalled for quite long time due to
> > > unknown reason). The now-available numbers for bs=4k dd's look fine.
> > > The pending tests are for bs=1M dd's and some random fio workloads.
> > >
> >
> > The changes are basically small enough to be considered noises.
> > But anyway here are some interpretations:
> >
> > - application visible data write performance (write_bw) is almost the same
> > - it slightly reduces the real IOs that hit disk (io_wkB_s, io_rkB_s)
> > - disk utilization slightly increased
> > - CPU time is slightly reduced
> >
> Well, two of the throughput numbers stand out (in both directions
> actually) although they seem to be more extreme configurations so maybe it
> is a noise. But maybe it would deserve further check:
>
> > $ ./compare-io bay/*/*-{3.3.0,3.3.0-plug+}
> > 3.3.0 3.3.0-plug+
> > ------------------------ ------------------------
> ...
> > 2.60 +7.1% 2.78 bay/thresh=1M/btrfs-10dd-1-3.3.0
> > 3.72 -12.5% 3.25 bay/thresh=1M/btrfs-1dd-1-3.3.0
> ...
Yeah. In fact I noticed btrfs performing badly on the 1MB dirty
threshold cases comparing to other filesystems. thresh=10MB cases are
fine. It looks better to explore this first. My hunch is that fixing
this issue may also change its sensitiveness to the plugging.
3.3.0 3.3.0-plug+
------------------------ ------------------------
2.60 +7.1% 2.78 bay/thresh=1M/btrfs-10dd-1-3.3.0
3.72 -12.5% 3.25 bay/thresh=1M/btrfs-1dd-1-3.3.0
62.41 +0.3% 62.60 bay/thresh=1M/ext3-10dd-1-3.3.0
58.61 +0.4% 58.82 bay/thresh=1M/ext3-1dd-1-3.3.0
70.70 -1.1% 69.92 bay/thresh=1M/ext4-10dd-1-3.3.0
84.81 +0.1% 84.90 bay/thresh=1M/ext4-1dd-1-3.3.0
66.05 -0.1% 65.97 bay/thresh=1M/xfs-10dd-1-3.3.0
74.81 +0.1% 74.85 bay/thresh=1M/xfs-1dd-1-3.3.0
> I looked at other iostat numbers as well, but seeing quite some changes
> in both directions I'd say that those iostat numbers are too noisy to draw
> serious conclusion from them.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Fengguang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-13 1:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-08 1:06 [RESEND][PATCH v2] block: remove plugging at buffered write time Wu Fengguang
2012-04-09 14:34 ` Jeff Moyer
2012-04-11 23:13 ` Andrew Morton
2012-04-12 1:32 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-04-12 2:20 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-04-12 14:26 ` Jan Kara
2012-04-13 1:40 ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
2012-05-03 3:43 ` [PATCH] btrfs: lower metadata writeback threshold on low dirty threshold Fengguang Wu
2012-05-03 3:53 ` [PATCH] writeback: initialize global_dirty_limit Fengguang Wu
2012-05-03 9:25 ` [PATCH] btrfs: lower metadata writeback threshold on low dirty threshold Jan Kara
2012-05-03 10:02 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-05-03 12:31 ` Chris Mason
2012-05-03 13:30 ` Josef Bacik
2012-05-03 14:08 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-05-06 6:01 ` [RESEND][PATCH v2] block: remove plugging at buffered write time Fengguang Wu
2012-05-06 9:58 ` Fengguang Wu
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=20120413014026.GA9027@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shli@fusionio.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).