From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: gus3 <musicman529@yahoo.com>
Cc: Szabolcs Szakacsits <szaka@ntfs-3g.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS vs Elevators (was Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system)
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:14:43 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080821061443.GD5706@disturbed> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <684252.68814.qm@web34508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 11:00:07PM -0700, gus3 wrote:
> --- On Wed, 8/20/08, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, I thought it might be the tiny log, but it didn't improve
> > anything here when increased the log size, or the log buffer
> > size.
> >
> > Looking at the block trace, I think elevator merging is somewhat
> > busted. I'm seeing adjacent I/Os being dispatched without having
> > been merged. e.g:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Also, CFQ appears to not be merging WRITE_SYNC bios or issuing
> > them with any urgency. The result of this is that it stalls the
> > XFS transaction subsystem by capturing all the log buffers in
> > the elevator and not issuing them. e.g.:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The I/Os are merged, but there's still that 700ms delay before
> > dispatch. i was looking at this a while back but didn't get to
> > finishing it off. i.e.:
> >
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-01/msg00151.html
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-01/msg00152.html
> >
> > I'll have a bit more of a look at this w.r.t to compilebench
> > performance, because it seems like a similar set of problems
> > that I was seeing back then...
>
> I concur your observation, esp. w.r.t. XFS and CFQ clashing:
>
> http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefore_i_think/2008/07/finding-the-fas.html
>
> CFQ is the default on most Linux systems AFAIK; for decent XFS
> performance one needs to switch to "noop" or "deadline". I wasn't
> sure if it was broken code, or simply base assumptions in conflict
> (XFS vs. CFQ). Your log output sheds light on the matter for me,
> thanks.
I'm wondering if these elevators are just getting too smart for
their own good. w.r.t to the above test, deadline was about twice
as slow as CFQ - it does immediate dispatch on SYNC_WRITE bios and
so caused more seeks that CFQ and hence went slower. noop had
similar dispatch latency problems to CFQ, so it wasn't any
faster either.
I think that we need to issue explicit unplugs to get the log I/O
dispatched the way we want on all elevators and stop trying to
give elevators implicit hints by abusing the bio types and hoping
they do the right thing....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-21 6:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-08-20 2:45 [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system Ryusuke Konishi
2008-08-20 7:43 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-20 8:22 ` Pekka Enberg
2008-08-20 18:47 ` Ryusuke Konishi
2008-08-20 16:13 ` Ryusuke Konishi
2008-08-20 21:25 ` Szabolcs Szakacsits
2008-08-20 21:39 ` Andrew Morton
2008-08-20 21:48 ` Szabolcs Szakacsits
2008-08-21 2:12 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-21 2:46 ` Szabolcs Szakacsits
2008-08-21 5:15 ` XFS vs Elevators (was Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system) Dave Chinner
2008-08-21 6:00 ` gus3
2008-08-21 6:14 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2008-08-21 7:00 ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-21 8:53 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-21 9:33 ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-21 17:08 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-22 2:29 ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-25 1:59 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-25 4:32 ` Nick Piggin
2008-08-25 12:01 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-08-26 3:07 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-26 3:50 ` david
2008-08-27 1:20 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-27 21:54 ` david
2008-08-28 1:08 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-21 14:52 ` Chris Mason
2008-08-21 6:04 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-21 8:07 ` Aaron Carroll
2008-08-21 8:25 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-21 11:02 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-08-21 15:00 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-08-21 17:10 ` Szabolcs Szakacsits
2008-08-21 17:33 ` Szabolcs Szakacsits
2008-08-22 2:24 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-22 6:49 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-08-22 12:44 ` Szabolcs Szakacsits
2008-08-23 12:52 ` Szabolcs Szakacsits
2008-08-21 11:53 ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-08-21 15:56 ` Dave Chinner
2008-08-21 12:51 ` [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system Chris Mason
2008-08-26 10:16 ` Jörn Engel
2008-08-26 16:54 ` Ryusuke Konishi
2008-08-27 18:13 ` Jörn Engel
2008-08-27 18:19 ` Jörn Engel
2008-08-29 6:29 ` Ryusuke Konishi
2008-08-29 8:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2008-08-29 10:51 ` konishi.ryusuke
2008-08-29 11:04 ` Jörn Engel
2008-08-29 10:45 ` Jörn Engel
2008-08-29 16:37 ` Ryusuke Konishi
2008-08-29 19:16 ` Jörn Engel
2008-09-01 12:25 ` Ryusuke Konishi
2008-08-20 9:47 ` Andi Kleen
2008-08-21 4:57 ` Ryusuke Konishi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-08-21 11:05 XFS vs Elevators (was Re: [PATCH RFC] nilfs2: continuous snapshotting file system) Martin Knoblauch
2008-08-21 15:59 ` Dave Chinner
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=20080821061443.GD5706@disturbed \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=musicman529@yahoo.com \
--cc=szaka@ntfs-3g.org \
--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