From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug()
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:58:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150916195806.GD29530@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150916151621.GA8624@ret.masoncoding.com>
On Wed 16-09-15 11:16:21, Chris Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 01:06:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Really need to run these numbers on slower disks where block layer
> > > merging makes a difference to performance.
> >
> > Yeah. We've seen plugging and io schedulers not make much difference
> > for high-performance flash (although I think the people who argued
> > that noop should generally be used for non-rotating media were wrong,
> > I think - the elevator ends up still being critical to merging, and
> > while merging isn't a life-or-death situation, it tends to still
> > help).
>
>
> Yeah, my big concern was that holding the plug longer would result in
> lower overall perf because we weren't keeping the flash busy. So I
> started with the flash boxes to make sure we weren't regressing past 4.2
> levels at least.
>
> I'm still worried about that, but this probably isn't the right
> benchmark to show it. And if it's really a problem, it'll happen
> everywhere we plug and not just here.
>
> >
> > For rotating rust with nasty seek times, the plugging is likely to
> > make the biggest difference.
>
> For rotating storage, I grabbed a big box and did the fs_mark run
> against 8 spindles. These are all behind a megaraid card as jbods, so I
> flipped the card's cache to write-through.
>
> I changed around the run a bit, making enough files for fs_mark to run
> for ~10 minutes, and I took out the sync. I ran only xfs to cut down on
> the iterations, and after the fs_mark run, I did short 30 second run with
> blktrace in the background to capture the io sizes.
>
> v4.2: 178K files/sec
> Chinner: 192K files/sec
> Mason: 192K files/sec
> Linus: 193K files/sec
>
> I added support to iowatcher to graph IO size, and attached the graph.
>
> Short version, Linus' patch still gives bigger IOs and similar perf to
> Dave's original. I should have done the blktrace runs for 60 seconds
> instead of 30, I suspect that would even out the average sizes between
> the three patches.
Thanks for the data Chris. So I guess we are fine with what's currently in,
right?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-16 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-11 19:37 [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug() Chris Mason
2015-09-11 20:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-11 20:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-11 20:40 ` Josef Bacik
2015-09-11 21:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-11 22:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-11 23:16 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-11 23:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-12 0:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-12 2:15 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-12 2:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-12 23:00 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-12 23:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-12 23:46 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-13 13:12 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-13 22:56 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-13 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-14 20:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-16 15:16 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-16 19:58 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2015-09-16 20:00 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-16 22:07 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-17 0:37 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-17 1:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-17 2:14 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-17 19:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-17 22:42 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-17 23:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-17 23:56 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-18 0:37 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-18 1:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-18 5:40 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-18 6:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-18 6:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-18 14:21 ` Jens Axboe
2015-09-18 13:16 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-18 14:23 ` Jens Axboe
2015-09-18 15:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-18 15:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-18 16:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-18 16:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-28 14:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-09-28 16:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-29 7:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-09-18 22:17 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-21 9:24 ` Jan Kara
2015-09-21 20:21 ` Andrew Morton
2015-09-17 23:03 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-17 23:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-09-17 3:48 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-17 4:30 ` Dave Chinner
2015-09-17 12:13 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-11 23:06 ` Chris Mason
2015-09-11 23:13 ` Linus Torvalds
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-09-09 15:23 Chris Mason
2015-09-11 18:49 ` Jens Axboe
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=20150916195806.GD29530@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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).