linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: "rae l" <crquan@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: iowait stability regressed from kernel 2.6.22 under heavy load of multi-thread aio writing/reading
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:37:03 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49k5izme80.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <91b13c310804110217g1d2c3ee4p69fee6fd43f4abd2@mail.gmail.com> (rae l.'s message of "Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:17:31 +0800")

"rae l" <crquan@gmail.com> writes:

> I found a problem with the vanilla kernel from 2.6.22 (include 23, 24):
>
> the situation is to test a customized linux distribution under heavy IO load:
> 1. the client process initiates tens of POSIX threads (using
> libpthread), each thread uses aio_write or aio_read(using librt)
> operating
>    on one small file, then close it and write another small file;
>    the whole objective is to get a maxium throughput of small files,
> by generating heavy aio stress on the system;
>
> I have tested the vanilla kernel 2.6.22/23/24.y, all these kernels
> have the common problem:
> 1. I use top, vmstat, and iostat to monitor the system performance, I
> found that the iowait time of CPU is high at most time,
>    above 60%, and not stable while the client process running,
> although the throughput is stable, the CPU iowait time not stable;
>    As a result of instability processes felt too long and unacceptable delay.
> 2. in seldom testing cases, the system even stopped: with bi/bo are 0
> and iowait 100%, all writing processes are blocking with
>    uninterruptible state (D state in ps output), these cases are all
> system running after several days writing, but cannot guarantee
>    to reproduce;
>
> First I suspect the filesystem or the storage medium have problems, I
> tried ext2/ext3/reiserfs/xfs, for different filesytems and
> SATA/SAS, IDE disks, and several commercial hard RAID card for
> different storage medium, but the bad result remained;
>
> Then I tested 2.6.21.7 kernel, this results a stable iowait CPU time
> (below 10%) but not so good throughput of small files;
>
> Now I think the improvements of IO effciency in the development of
> 2.6.22 also caused the instability of iowait time, right? but how
> to find out? Simple bisecting seems not work.

Why doesn't bisecting work?  Can you provide your test code so others
can verify your findings?

> by the way, a question is how to guarantee a kernel not regress under
> heavy multi-thread aio writing load? ltp project seems not give the
> answer:

Well, providing your test code would be a step closer to achieving this
guarantee.  If it is scriptable, then there is a chance we could
integrate it into the aio-dio regression test suite:

  http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/zab/aio-dio-regress.git;a=summary

Cheers,

Jeff

  reply	other threads:[~2008-04-15 13:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-11  9:17 iowait stability regressed from kernel 2.6.22 under heavy load of multi-thread aio writing/reading rae l
2008-04-15 13:37 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2008-04-15 17:29   ` rae l
2008-04-16  7:18   ` rae l

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=x49k5izme80.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
    --to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=crquan@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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).