linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>
To: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Peter Grandi <pg_xf2@xf2.for.sabi.co.uk>,
	Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux XFS <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs]
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:39:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200812161039.07700.Martin@lichtvoll.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081215223857.GF32301@disturbed>

Am Montag 15 Dezember 2008 schrieb Dave Chinner:
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:02:05PM +0000, Peter Grandi wrote:
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > But - as far as I understood - the filesystem doesn't have to
> > > wait for barriers to complete, but could continue issuing IO
> > > requests happily. A barrier only means, any request prior to
> > > that have to land before and any after it after it.
> > >
> > > It doesn't mean that the barrier has to land immediately and
> > > the filesystem has to wait for this. At least that always was
> > > the whole point of barriers for me. If thats not the case I
> > > misunderstood the purpose of barriers to the maximum extent
> > > possible.
> >
> > Unfortunately that seems the case.
> >
> > The purpose of barriers is to guarantee that relevant data is
> > known to be on persistent storage (kind of hardware 'fsync').
> >
> > In effect write barrier means "tell me when relevant data is on
> > persistent storage", or less precisely "flush/sync writes now
> > and tell me when it is done". Properties as to ordering are just
> > a side effect.
>
> No, that is incorrect.
>
> Barriers provide strong ordering semantics.  I/Os issued before the
> barrier must be completed before the barrier I/O, and I/Os issued
> after the barrier write must not be started before the barrier write
> completes. The elevators are not allowed to re-оrder I/Os around
> barriers.
>
> This is all documented in Documentation/block/barrier.txt. Please
> read it because most of what you are saying appears to be based on
> incorrect assumptions about what barriers do.

Hmmm, so I am not completely off track it seems ;-).

What I still do not understand then is: How can write barriers + write 
cache be slower than no write barriers + no cache? I still would expect 
write barriers + write cache be in between no barriers + write cache and 
no barriers + no cache performance wise. And would see anything else as a 
regression basically.

This doesn't go into my brain yet and I thought I understood 
Documentation/block/barrier.txt well enough before writing my article.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

  reply	other threads:[~2008-12-16  9:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-06 14:28 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs] Justin Piszcz
2008-12-06 15:36 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-06 20:35   ` Redeeman
2008-12-13 12:54   ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-13 17:26     ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-13 17:40       ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-14  3:31         ` Redeeman
2008-12-14 14:02           ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 18:12             ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 22:02               ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-15 22:38                 ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-16  9:39                   ` Martin Steigerwald [this message]
2008-12-16 20:57                     ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-16 23:14                     ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-17 21:40                 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-18  8:20                   ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-18 23:33                     ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-21 19:16                     ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-22 13:19                       ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-18 22:26                   ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-20 14:06               ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 18:35             ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 17:49           ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 23:36         ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-13 18:01       ` David Lethe
2008-12-06 18:42 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-11  0:20 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-11  9:18   ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-11  9:24     ` Justin Piszcz
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-12-14 18:33 Martin Steigerwald

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=200812161039.07700.Martin@lichtvoll.de \
    --to=martin@lichtvoll.de \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    --cc=pg_xf2@xf2.for.sabi.co.uk \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /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).