From: "Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@parallels.com>
To: <lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net"
<fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [ATTEND][LSF/MM TOPIC] FUSE: write-back cache policy and other improvements
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 19:08:01 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <511BAC51.4030309@parallels.com> (raw)
Hi,
I'm interested in attending to discuss the latest advances in
accelerating FUSE and making it more friendly to distributed
file-systems. I'd like to propose and participate in the following
discussions in the upcoming LSF/MM:
* write-back cache policy: one of the problems with the existing FUSE
implementation is that it uses the write-through cache policy which
results in performance problems on certain workloads. A good solution of
this is switching the FUSE page cache into a write-back policy. With
this file data are pushed to the userspace with big chunks which lets
the FUSE daemons handle requests in a more efficient manner.
* optimize scatter-gather direct IO: dio performance can be improved
significantly by stuffing many io-vectors into a single fuse request.
This is especially the case for device virtualization thread performing
i/o on behalf of virtual-machine it serves.
* process direct IO asynchronously: both AIO and ordinary synchronous
direct IO can be boosted by submitting fuse requests in non-blocking way
(where it's possible) and either returning -EIOCBQUEUED or waiting for
their completions synchronously.
* synchronous close(2): currently, in-kernel fuse sends release request
to userspace and returns without waiting for ACK from userspace.
Consequently, there is a gap when user regards the file released while
userspace fuse is still working on it. This leads to unnecessary
synchronization complications for file-systems with shared access. That
behaviour can be fixed by making close(2) synchronous.
* throttle request allocations: currently, in-kernel fuse throttles
allocations of all fuse requests. Switching to the policy where only
background requests are throttled would improve the latency of
synchronous requests and resolve thundering herd problem of waking up
all threads blocked on fuse request allocations.
Thanks,
Maxim
next reply other threads:[~2013-02-13 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-13 15:08 Maxim V. Patlasov [this message]
2013-02-28 12:19 ` [ATTEND][LSF/MM TOPIC] FUSE: write-back cache policy and other improvements Maxim V. Patlasov
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=511BAC51.4030309@parallels.com \
--to=mpatlasov@parallels.com \
--cc=fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.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).