From: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@fusionio.com>,
Robert Elliott <Elliott@hp.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk
Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@mellanox.com>, Oren Duer <oren@mellanox.com>,
"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@mellanox.com>
Subject: Performance degradation in IO writes vs. reads (was scsi-mq V2)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 15:32:09 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53F5E6C9.1020207@dev.mellanox.co.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53C39F36.9010003@dev.mellanox.co.il>
On 7/14/2014 12:13 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
<SNIP>
> I'd like to share some benchmarks I took on this patch set using iSER
> initiator (+2 pre-submitted performance improvements) vs LIO iSER target.
> I ran workloads I think are interesting use-cases (single LUN with 1,2,4
> IO threads up to a fully occupied system doing IO to multiple LUNs).
> Overall (except 2 strange anomalies) seems that scsi-mq patches
> (use_blk_mq=N) roughly sustains traditional scsi performance.
> On the other hand scsi-mq code path (use_blk_mq=Y) on its own clearly
> shows better performance (tables below).
>
> At first I too hit the aio issues discussed in this thread and converted
> to scsi-mq.3-no-rebase for testing (thanks Doug & Rob for raising it).
> I must say that for some reason I get very low numbers for writes vs.
> reads (writes perf stuck at ~20K IOPs per thread), this happens
> on 3.16-rc2 even before scsi-mq patches. Did anyone step on this as well
> or is it just a weird problem I'm having in my setup?
> Anyway this is why my benchmarks shows only randread IO pattern (getting
> familiar numbers). I need to figure out whats wrong
> with IO writes - I'll start bisecting on this.
>
Hi,
So I just got back to checking this issue of *extremely low* IO write
performance I got in 3.16-rc2.
Reminder:
I used iSER to benchmark Christoph's scsi-mq patches performance and
noticed that direct-IO writes are stuck at 20-50K IOPs instead of 350K
IOPs I was used to see for a single device. This issue existed also when
I removed the scsi-mq patches, so I started bisecting to see what broke
stuff.
Finally I got to the completely unbisectable bulk that seems to yield
the issue:
/* IO write poor performance*/
2b777c9 ceph_sync_read: stop poking into iov_iter guts
f0d1bec new helper: copy_page_from_iter()
84c3d55 fuse: switch to ->write_iter()
b30ac0f btrfs: switch to ->write_iter()
3ef045c ocfs2: switch to ->write_iter()
bf97f3b xfs: switch to ->write_iter()
50b5551 afs: switch to ->write_iter()
da56e45 gfs2: switch to ->write_iter()
edaf436 nfs: switch to ->write_iter()
f5674c3 ubifs: switch to ->write_iter()
a8f3550 bury __generic_file_aio_write()
3dae875 cifs: switch to ->write_iter()
d4637bc udf: switch to ->write_iter()
9b88416 convert ext4 to ->write_iter()
a832475 Merge ext4 changes in ext4_file_write() into for-next
1456c0a blkdev_aio_write() - turn into blkdev_write_iter()
8174202 write_iter variants of {__,}generic_file_aio_write()
3644424 ceph: switch to ->read_iter()
3aa2d19 nfs: switch to ->read_iter()
a886038 fs/block_dev.c: switch to ->read_iter()
2ba5bbe shmem: switch to ->read_iter()
fb9096a pipe: switch to ->read_iter()
e6a7bcb cifs: switch to ->read_iter()
37c20f1 fuse_file_aio_read(): convert to ->read_iter()
3cd9ad5 ocfs2: switch to ->read_iter()
0279782 ecryptfs: switch to ->read_iter()
b4f5d2c xfs: switch to ->read_iter()
aad4f8b switch simple generic_file_aio_read() users to ->read_iter()
293bc98 new methods: ->read_iter() and ->write_iter()
7f7f25e replace checking for ->read/->aio_read presence with check in
->f_mode
b318891 xfs: trim the argument lists of xfs_file_{dio,buffered}_aio_write()
37938463 blkdev_aio_read(): switch to generic_file_read_iter(), get rid
of iov_shorten()
0c94933 iov_iter_truncate()
28060d5 btrfs: switch check_direct_IO() to iov_iter
91f79c4 new helper: iov_iter_get_pages_alloc()
f67da30 new helper: iov_iter_npages()
5b46f25 f2fs: switch to iov_iter_alignment()
c9c37e2 fuse: switch to iov_iter_get_pages()
d22a943 fuse: pull iov_iter initializations up
7b2c99d new helper: iov_iter_get_pages()
3320c60 dio: take updating ->result into do_direct_IO(
71d8e53 start adding the tag to iov_iter
ed978a8 new helper: generic_file_read_iter()
23faa7b fuse_file_aio_write(): merge initializations of iov_iter
05bb2e0 ceph_aio_read(): keep iov_iter across retries
886a391 new primitive: iov_iter_alignment()
26978b8 give ->direct_IO() a copy of iov_iter
31b1403 switch {__,}blockdev_direct_IO() to iov_iter
a6cbcd4 get rid of pointless iov_length() in ->direct_IO()
16b1f05 ext4: switch the guts of ->direct_IO() to iov_iter
619d30b convert the guts of nfs_direct_IO() to iov_iter
d8d3d94 pass iov_iter to ->direct_IO()
cb66a7a kill generic_segment_checks()
0ae5e4d __btrfs_direct_write(): switch to iov_iter
f8579f8 generic_file_direct_write(): switch to iov_iter
e7c2460 kill iov_iter_copy_from_user()
f6c0a19 fs/file.c: don't open-code kvfree()
/* IO write performance is OK*/
I tried to isolate the issue by running fio on a null_blk
device and also got performance degradation although it wasn't
as severe as with iSER/iSCSI. IO write performance decreased
from 360K IOPs to 280 KIOPs.
So at the moment I can't pin point the problem, but I figured
I'd raise the issue in case anyone else had stepped on this one
(hard to imagine that no one saw this...)
I'll run perf comparison to see if I get anything interesting.
CC'ing Al Viro, the author of all the above commits.
Cheers,
Sagi.
next parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-21 12:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1403715121-1201-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
[not found] ` <20140708144829.GA5539@infradead.org>
[not found] ` <53C39F36.9010003@dev.mellanox.co.il>
2014-08-21 12:32 ` Sagi Grimberg [this message]
2014-08-21 13:03 ` Performance degradation in IO writes vs. reads (was scsi-mq V2) Christoph Hellwig
2014-08-21 14:02 ` Sagi Grimberg
2014-08-24 16:41 ` Sagi Grimberg
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=53F5E6C9.1020207@dev.mellanox.co.il \
--to=sagig@dev.mellanox.co.il \
--cc=Elliott@hp.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@fusionio.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxg@mellanox.com \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=nab@linux-iscsi.org \
--cc=ogerlitz@mellanox.com \
--cc=oren@mellanox.com \
--cc=viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
/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).