From: Pallai Roland <dap@mail.index.hu>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
Cc: Linux RAID Mailing List <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved]
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 02:42:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200704220242.42285.dap@mail.index.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704212017110.25079@p34.internal.lan>
On Sunday 22 April 2007 02:18:09 Justin Piszcz wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007, Pallai Roland wrote:
> >
> > RAID5, chunk size 128k:
> >
> > # mdadm -C -n8 -l5 -c128 -z 12000000 /dev/md/0 /dev/sd[ijklmnop]
> > (waiting for sync, then mount, mkfs, etc)
> > # blockdev --setra 4096 /dev/md/0
> > # ./readtest &
> > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system--
> > ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in
> > cs us sy id wa 91 10 0 432908 0 436572 0 0 99788 40
> > 2925 50358 2 36 0 63 0 11 0 444184 0 435992 0 0 89996
> > 32 4252 49303 1 31 0 68 45 11 0 446924 0 441024 0 0
> > 88584 0 5748 58197 0 30 2 67 - context switch storm, only 10 of 100
> > processes are working, lot of thrashed readahead pages. I'm sure you can
> > reproduce with 64Kb max_sectors_kb and 2.6.20.x on *any* 8 disk-wide
> > RAID5 array if chunk size > max_sectors_kb: for i in `seq 1 100`; do dd
> > of=$i if=/dev/zero bs=64k 2>/dev/null; done for i in `seq 1 100`; do dd
> > if=$i of=/dev/zero bs=64k 2>/dev/null & done
> >
> >
> > RAID5, chunk size 64k (equal to max_hw_sectors):
> >
> > # mdadm -C -n8 -l5 -c64 -z 12000000 /dev/md/0 /dev/sd[ijklmnop]
> > (waiting for sync, then mount, mkfs, etc)
> > # blockdev --setra 4096 /dev/md/0
> > # ./readtest &
> > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system--
> > ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in
> > cs us sy id wa 1 99 0 309260 0 653000 0 0 309620 0
> > 4521 2897 0 17 0 82 1 99 0 156436 0 721452 0 0 258072
> > 0 4640 3168 0 14 0 86 0 100 0 244088 0 599888 0 0
> > 258856 0 4703 3986 1 17 0 82 - YES! It's MUCH better now! :)
> >
> >
> > All in all, I use 64Kb chunk now and I'm happy, but I think it's
> > definitely a software bug. The sata_mv driver also doesn't give bigger
> > max_sectors_kb on Marvell chips, so it's a performance killer for every
> > Marvell user if they're using 128k or bigger chunks on RAID5. A warning
> > should be printed by the kernel at least if it's not a bug, just a
> > limitation.
> >
> >
>
> How did you run your read test?
>
> $ sudo dd if=/dev/md3 of=/dev/null
> Password:
> 18868881+0 records in
> 18868880+0 records out
> 9660866560 bytes (9.7 GB) copied, 36.661 seconds, 264 MB/s
>
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system--
> ----cpu---- r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in
> cs us sy id wa 2 0 0 3007612 251068 86372 0 0 243732 0
> 3109 541 15 38 47 0 1 0 0 3007724 282444 86344 0 0 260636
> 0 3152 619 14 38 48 0 1 0 0 3007472 282600 86400 0 0 262188
> 0 3153 339 15 38 48 0 1 0 0 3007432 282792 86360 0 0
> 262160 67 3197 1066 14 38 47 0
>
> However--
>
> $ sudo dd if=/dev/md3 of=/dev/null bs=8M
> 763+0 records in
> 762+0 records out
> 6392119296 bytes (6.4 GB) copied, 14.0555 seconds, 455 MB/s
>
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system--
> ----cpu---- 0 1 0 2999592 282408 86388 0 0 434208 0 4556
> 1514 0 43 43 15 1 0 0 2999892 262928 86552 0 0 439816 68
> 4568 2412 0 43 43 14 1 1 0 2999952 281832 86532 0 0 444992
> 0 4604 1486 0 43 43 14 1 1 0 2999708 282148 86456 0 0 458752
> 0 4642 1694 0 45 42 13
I did run 100 parallel reader process (dd) top of XFS file system, try this:
for i in `seq 1 100`; do dd of=$i if=/dev/zero bs=64k 2>/dev/null; done
for i in `seq 1 100`; do dd if=$i of=/dev/zero bs=64k 2>/dev/null & done
and don't forget to set max_sectors_kb below chunk size (eg. 64/128Kb)
/sys/block# for i in sd*; do echo 64 >$i/queue/max_sectors_kb; done
I also set 2048/4096 readahead sectors with blockdev --setra
You need 50-100 reader processes for this issue, I think so. My kernel version
is 2.6.20.3
--
d
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-22 0:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-20 21:06 major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors Pallai Roland
[not found] ` <5d96567b0704202247s60e4f2f1x19511f790f597ea0@mail.gmail.com>
2007-04-21 19:32 ` major performance drop on raid5 due to context switches caused by small max_hw_sectors [partially resolved] Pallai Roland
2007-04-22 0:18 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-22 0:42 ` Pallai Roland [this message]
2007-04-22 8:47 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-22 9:52 ` Pallai Roland
2007-04-22 10:23 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-22 11:38 ` Pallai Roland
2007-04-22 11:42 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-22 14:38 ` Pallai Roland
2007-04-22 14:48 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-22 15:09 ` Pallai Roland
2007-04-22 15:53 ` Justin Piszcz
2007-04-22 19:01 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
2007-04-22 20:35 ` Justin Piszcz
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=200704220242.42285.dap@mail.index.hu \
--to=dap@mail.index.hu \
--cc=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
--cc=linux-raid@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).