From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14A9219CD0A; Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777206537; cv=none; b=tSr0y4hVlVD5YGY2W1FMdfAs5nExwfz0pX5DS0cegab9sIjY2JgHsYzZ/fUirtxGkW1slUr0fk7qGLRoXrlxgQYAsiTsAjQloPelPNLFami2aYXBj5Z5YdpOoYGICQ9i6udUMnPwJ7aTX7+i0XAPFdwVxGBuDLU+BDeIYp+L8PM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777206537; c=relaxed/simple; bh=02nQF9ZDfAItP1KXDmKfzZAP87rtizrXoyjxQHVV1Lo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=C8FJ2K5tJ7+rugjVsJADHwBFqKOztIfzqsx765cathBxSboT9Z9c/MCPLjypOVCWOp4aHgYnsn8M5G2ZPiVWuCU2EFBr8zECC2v6kcIwWM/bqxn5db5Nj26jpYoybcZf/7z0k/0JzD6WvhvHhsRZWDWQEe+20T051VqiFJqHrYw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b=pd/oI2vF; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="pd/oI2vF" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC24CC2BCAF; Sun, 26 Apr 2026 12:28:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1777206536; bh=02nQF9ZDfAItP1KXDmKfzZAP87rtizrXoyjxQHVV1Lo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pd/oI2vFFB+HvfCXWQ9ze+KoA9goPh+V2E3V47FrYlGPUBFTWKP5yPWjE+3q4B+vF AXILaQ5GKEgCuYadV/AHE82lxQFGnBbR9Xikmm/8GYi6uV9Woh5zSzM5vRlzN3/HTo /ngwKUrDSYMY+RdfdcklSJdbNM6LMt+yQ530jXA8= Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 05:28:54 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jeff Layton Cc: Alexander Viro , Christian Brauner , Jan Kara , "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" , David Hildenbrand , Lorenzo Stoakes , "Liam R. Howlett" , Vlastimil Babka , Mike Rapoport , Suren Baghdasaryan , Michal Hocko , Mike Snitzer , Jens Axboe , Ritesh Harjani , Christoph Hellwig , Kairui Song , Qi Zheng , Shakeel Butt , Barry Song , Axel Rasmussen , Yuanchu Xie , Wei Xu , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , Chuck Lever , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mm: kick writeback flusher for IOCB_DONTCACHE with targeted dirty tracking Message-Id: <20260426052854.8372fb9d4c616f16a8aa0a0f@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20260426-dontcache-v3-2-79eb37da9547@kernel.org> References: <20260426-dontcache-v3-0-79eb37da9547@kernel.org> <20260426-dontcache-v3-2-79eb37da9547@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Naive questions... On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 07:56:08 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote: > The IOCB_DONTCACHE writeback path in generic_write_sync() calls > filemap_flush_range() on every write, submitting writeback inline in > the writer's context. Perf lock contention profiling shows the > performance problem is not lock contention but the writeback submission > work itself — walking the page tree and submitting I/O blocks the writer > for milliseconds, inflating p99.9 latency from 23ms (buffered) to 93ms > (dontcache). So in the current case, when generic_write_sync() returns, all that memory is written back and clean&reclaimable (or freed?), yes? > Replace the inline filemap_flush_range() call with a flusher kick that > drains dirty pages in the background. This moves writeback submission > completely off the writer's hot path. Whereas after this change, that pagecache is probably still dirty, unreclaimable, waiting for the flusher to do its thing? So is there potential that the system will get all gummed up with dirty, to-be-written-soon pagecache? Is there something which limits this buildup? > ... > > dontcache-bench results on dual-socket Xeon Gold 6138 (80 CPUs, 256 GB > RAM, Samsung MZ1LB1T9HALS 1.7 TB NVMe, local XFS, io_uring, file size > ~503 GB, compared to a v6.19-ish baseline): > > Single-client sequential write (MB/s): > baseline patched change > buffered 1449.8 1440.1 -0.7% > dontcache 1347.9 1461.5 +8.4% > direct 1450.0 1440.1 -0.7% > > Single-client sequential write latency (us): > baseline patched change > dontcache p50 3031.0 10551.3 +248.1% > dontcache p99 74973.2 21626.9 -71.2% > dontcache p99.9 85459.0 23199.7 -72.9% > > Single-client random write (MB/s): > baseline patched change > dontcache 284.2 295.4 +3.9% > > Single-client random write p99.9 latency (us): > baseline patched change > dontcache 2277.4 872.4 -61.7% > > Multi-writer aggregate throughput (MB/s): > baseline patched change > buffered 1619.5 1611.2 -0.5% > dontcache 1281.1 1629.4 +27.2% > direct 1545.4 1609.4 +4.1% > > Mixed-mode noisy neighbor (dontcache writer + buffered readers): > baseline patched change > writer (MB/s) 1297.6 1471.1 +13.4% > readers avg (MB/s) 855.0 462.4 -45.9% These results look ambiguous. Sometimes better, sometimes worse? > nfsd-io-bench results on same hardware (XFS on NVMe, NFSv3 via fio > NFS engine with libnfs, 1024 NFSD threads, pool_mode=pernode, > file size ~502 GB, compared to v6.19-ish baseline): > > Single-client sequential write (MB/s): > baseline patched change > buffered 4844.2 4653.4 -3.9% > dontcache 3028.3 3723.1 +22.9% > direct 957.6 987.8 +3.2% > > Single-client sequential write p99.9 latency (us): > baseline patched change > dontcache 759169.0 175112.2 -76.9% > > Single-client random write (MB/s): > baseline patched change > dontcache 590.0 1561.0 +164.6% > > Multi-writer aggregate throughput (MB/s): > baseline patched change > buffered 9636.3 9422.9 -2.2% > dontcache 1894.9 9442.6 +398.3% > direct 809.6 975.1 +20.4% > > Noisy neighbor (dontcache writer + random readers): > baseline patched change > writer (MB/s) 1854.5 4063.6 +119.1% > readers avg (MB/s) 131.2 101.6 -22.5% Ditto but less so. > The NFS results show even larger improvements than the local benchmarks. > Multi-writer dontcache throughput improves nearly 5x, matching buffered > I/O. Dirty page footprint drops 85-95% in sequential workloads vs. > buffered. It sounds that you like the results, so OK ;)