From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jinpu Wang Subject: Re: Bisected: Kernel 4.14 + has 3 times higher write IO latency than Kernel 4.4 with raid1 Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:35:20 +0200 Message-ID: References: <0a83fde3-1a74-684c-0d70-fb44b9021f96@molgen.mpg.de> <87h86vjhv0.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87blx1kglx.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: Neil F Brown , Alexandr Iarygin , Guoqing Jiang , Paul Menzel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:36 AM Jinpu Wang wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:40 AM NeilBrown wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 06 2019, Jinpu Wang wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 9:54 AM Jinpu Wang wrote: > > >> > > >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 1:46 AM NeilBrown wrote: > > >> > > > >> > On Mon, Aug 05 2019, Jinpu Wang wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi Neil, > > >> > > > > >> > > For the md higher write IO latency problem, I bisected it to these commits: > > >> > > > > >> > > 4ad23a97 MD: use per-cpu counter for writes_pending > > >> > > 210f7cd percpu-refcount: support synchronous switch to atomic mode. > > >> > > > > >> > > Do you maybe have an idea? How can we fix it? > > >> > > > >> > Hmmm.... not sure. > > >> Hi Neil, > > >> > > >> Thanks for reply, detailed result in line. > > > > Thanks for the extra testing. > > ... > > > [ 105.133299] md md0 in_sync is 0, sb_flags 2, recovery 3, external > > > 0, safemode 0, recovery_cp 524288 > > ... > > > > ahh - the resync was still happening. That explains why set_in_sync() > > is being called so often. If you wait for sync to complete (or create > > the array with --assume-clean) you should see more normal behaviour. > I've updated my tests accordingly, thanks for the hint. > > > > This patch should fix it. I think we can do better but it would be more > > complex so no suitable for backports to -stable. > > > > Once you confirm it works, I'll send it upstream with a > > Reported-and-Tested-by from you. > > > > Thanks, > > NeilBrown > > Thanks a lot, Neil, my quick test show, yes, it fixed the problem for me. > > I will run more tests to be sure, will report back the test result. Hi Neil, I've run our regression tests with your patch, everything works fine as expected. So Reported-and-Tested-by: Jack Wang Thank you for your quick fix. The patch should go to stable 4.12+ Regards, Jack Wang > > Regards, > Jack Wang > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c > > index 24638ccedce4..624cf1ac43dc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/md/md.c > > +++ b/drivers/md/md.c > > @@ -8900,6 +8900,7 @@ void md_check_recovery(struct mddev *mddev) > > > > if (mddev_trylock(mddev)) { > > int spares = 0; > > + bool try_set_sync = mddev->safemode != 0; > > > > if (!mddev->external && mddev->safemode == 1) > > mddev->safemode = 0; > > @@ -8945,7 +8946,7 @@ void md_check_recovery(struct mddev *mddev) > > } > > } > > > > - if (!mddev->external && !mddev->in_sync) { > > + if (try_set_sync && !mddev->external && !mddev->in_sync) { > > spin_lock(&mddev->lock); > > set_in_sync(mddev); > > spin_unlock(&mddev->lock);