linux-scsi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gernot Hillier <gernot.hillier@siemens.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, sathya.prakash@broadcom.com,
	chaitra.basappa@broadcom.com,
	suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com
Subject: Re: unexpected sync delays in dpkg for small pre-allocated files on ext4
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 11:44:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <574EAE69.5040003@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160531002152.GQ26977@dastard>

Hi!

On 31.05.2016 02:21, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:27:52AM +0200, Gernot Hillier wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 25.05.2016 01:13, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 07:07:41PM +0200, Gernot Hillier wrote:
>>>> We experience strange delays with kernel 4.1.18 during dpkg
>>>> package installation on an ext4 filesystem after switching from
>>>> Ubuntu 14.04 to 16.04. We can reproduce the issue with kernel 4.6.
>>>> Installation of the same package takes 2s with ext3 and 31s with
>>>> ext4 on the same partition.
>>>>
>>>> Hardware is an Intel-based server with Supermicro X8DTH board and
>>>> Seagate ST973451SS disks connected to an LSI SAS2008 controller (PCI
>>>> 0x1000:0x0072, mpt2sas driver).
>> [...]
>>>> To me, the problem looks comparable to
>>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56821 (even if we don't see
>>>> a full hang and there's no RAID involved for us), so a closer look on
>>>> the SCSI layer or driver might be the next step?
>>>
>>> What I would suggest is to create a small test case which compares the
>>> time it takes to allocate 1 megabyte of memory, zero it, and then
>>> write one megabytes of zeros using the write(2) system call.  Then try
>>> writing one megabytes of zero using the BLKZEROOUT ioctl.
>>
>> Ok, this is my test code:
>>
>> 	const int SIZE = 1*1024*1024;
>> 	char* buffer = malloc(SIZE);
>> 	uint64_t range[2] = { 0, SIZE };
>> 	int fd = open("/dev/sdb2", O_WRONLY);
>>
>> 	bzero(buffer, SIZE);
>> 	write(fd, buffer, SIZE);
>> 	sync_file_range(fd, 0, 0, 2);
>>
>> 	ioctl (fd, BLKZEROOUT, range);
>>
>> 	close(fd);
>> 	free(buffer);
>>
>> # strace -tt ./test-tytso
>> [...]
>> 15:46:27.481636 open("/dev/sdb2", O_WRONLY) = 3
>> 15:46:27.482004 write(3, "\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 1048576) = 1048576
>> 15:46:27.482438 sync_file_range(3, 0, 0, SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) = 0
>> 15:46:27.482698 ioctl(3, BLKZEROOUT, [0, 100000]) = 0
>> 15:46:27.546971 close(3)                = 0
>>
>> So the write() and sync_file_range() in the first case takes ~400 us
>> each while BLKZEROOUT takes... 60 ms. Wow.
> 
> Comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Unlike the name implies, sync_file_range() does not provide any data
> integrity semantics what-so-ever: SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE only submits
> IO to clean dirty pages - that only takes 400us of CPU time.  It
[...]
> completion. This is what BLKZEROOUT is effectively doing, so I think
> you'll find fdatasync() also takes around 60ms...

Oops, sorry for that! I just copied the sync pattern which initially
caused the delays in dpkg.

With updated test, I still reproducably see a factor of ~2.5 between
write+fdatasync (16 ms) and BLKZEROOUT (40 ms), as an example:

17:12:30.742679 open("/dev/sdb2", O_WRONLY) = 3
17:12:30.742733 fdatasync(3)            = 0
17:12:30.743148 write(3, "\0\0\0\0\0\0"..., 1048576) = 1048576
17:12:30.743605 fdatasync(3)            = 0
17:12:30.758984 ioctl(3, BLKZEROOUT, [0, 100000]) = 0
17:12:30.798937 close(3)                = 0

So, I'm a bit confused now. Does this mean we see three bugs here?

1) inefficient use of fallocate() + sync_file_range() by dpkg
   (was also reported as [1])
2) BLKZEROOUT more then 2 times slower than write+fsync
3) again unexpected ext4 delay caused by fallocate()+sync_file_range()

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=824636

-- 
With kind regards,
Gernot Hillier

Siemens AG, Corporate Technology
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux


  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-01  9:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <57448A5D.4050805@siemens.com>
     [not found] ` <20160524231328.GB387@thunk.org>
2016-05-30  8:27   ` unexpected sync delays in dpkg for small pre-allocated files on ext4 Gernot Hillier
2016-05-31  0:21     ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-01  9:44       ` Gernot Hillier [this message]
2016-06-01 13:17         ` Gernot Hillier
2016-06-01 14:12           ` Theodore Ts'o
2016-06-02 16:23             ` Gernot Hillier
2016-07-13 13:57             ` Gernot Hillier

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=574EAE69.5040003@siemens.com \
    --to=gernot.hillier@siemens.com \
    --cc=MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com \
    --cc=chaitra.basappa@broadcom.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sathya.prakash@broadcom.com \
    --cc=suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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).