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 15:17:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <574EE05A.9070302@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <574EAE69.5040003@siemens.com>
On 01.06.2016 11:44, Gernot Hillier wrote:
> 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
BTW, that bug reminded me that we initially saw this issue also on a
second machine, sorry for not mentioning/checking this earlier:
- Intel server with Supermicro X9DR3-F board, Intel C606 SAS controller
(PCI id 8086:1d68) with Seagate ST300MM0006 disks.
I repeated the discussed tests and found comparable results on this machine:
- 3 seconds dpkg install time on ext3 vs. 80 seconds for ext4
on same partition for same package
- 40 ms for fallocate+write+sync_file_range for writing a few bytes
- 15 ms for write+fdatasync vs. 45 ms for BLKZEROOUT on raw device
So this seems to be not bound to one specific disk+controller setup, but
it still can't be a common problem affecting many people as then we
would see more reports about it...
--
Gernot
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-01 13:17 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
2016-06-01 13:17 ` Gernot Hillier [this message]
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=574EE05A.9070302@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).