From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: Weston Andros Adamson <dros@monkey.org>
Cc: linux-nfs list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression in DIO write behavior
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 14:46:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1485287189.3143.29.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <963DBD29-C835-4716-9EAE-74C2EACA427F@monkey.org>
On Tue, 2017-01-24 at 12:23 -0500, Weston Andros Adamson wrote:
> Hey Jeff,
>
> That sounds like a regression to me. I don't think it's been around since the
> pgio rework, but maybe?
>
> -dros
>
> > On Jan 24, 2017, at 10:44 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed a probable regression in recent kernels. When you run the
> > attached program on an older kernel (I used 2.6.32-642.6.2.el6.x86_64),
> > I see the kernel generate wsize WRITE calls on the wire.
> >
> > When I run the same program on a more modern kernel (mainline as of
> > today), it generates a ton of page-sized I/Os instead. I've verified
> > that iov_iter_get_pages_alloc is returning a wsize array of pages, it
> > just seems like the request handling code isn't stitching them together
> > like it should.
> >
> > Is this an expected change or a regression? I'm guessing the latter, and
> > that it might have crept in during the pageio rework from a couple of
> > years ago.
> >
> > Any idea where the bug might be?
> > --
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com><diotest2.c>
>
>
Ahh, I think I might get it now and it's not as bad as I had originally
feared...
If you dirty all of the pages before writing, it seems to coalesce them
correctly. The reproducer allocates pages, but doesn't actually dirty
them before writing them. Apparently the allocator is setting up the
mapping such that each page offset address in the allocation points to
the same page. I imagine it's then setting up that page for CoW.
So we end up in this test in nfs_can_coalesce_requests and hit the
return false:
if (req->wb_page == prev->wb_page) {
if (req->wb_pgbase != prev->wb_pgbase + prev->wb_bytes)
return false;
I think that's in place to handle sub-page write requests, but maybe we
should consider doing that a different way for DIO?
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-24 19:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-24 15:44 regression in DIO write behavior Jeff Layton
2017-01-24 17:23 ` Weston Andros Adamson
2017-01-24 17:50 ` Jeff Layton
2017-01-24 19:46 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
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=1485287189.3143.29.camel@redhat.com \
--to=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=dros@monkey.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@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).