From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jos Houtman <jos@hyves.nl>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Page Cache writeback too slow, SSD/noop scheduler/ext2
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:53:15 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090321035315.fc10cef6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C5E99E4E.C0E0%jos@hyves.nl>
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:26:06 +0100 Jos Houtman <jos@hyves.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have hit a problem where the page-cache writeback algorithm is not
> keeping up.
> When memory gets low this will result in very irregular performance drops.
>
> Our setup is as follows:
> 30 x Quad core machine with 64GB ram.
> These are single purpose machines running MySQL.
> Kernel version: 2.6.28.7
> A dedicated SSD drive for the ext2 database partition
> Noop scheduler for the ssd drive.
>
>
> The current hypothesis is as follows:
> The wk_update function does not write enough dirty pages, which allows the
> number of dirty pages to grow to the dirty_background limit.
> When memory is low, __background_writeout() comes around and __forcefully__
> writes dirty pages to disk.
> This forced write fills the disk queue and starves read calls that MySQL is
> trying to do: basically killing performance for a few seconds.
> This pattern repeats as soon as the cleared memory is filled again.
>
> Decreasing the dirty_writeback_centisecs to 100 doesn__t help
>
> I don__t know why this is, but I did some preliminary tracing using systemtap
> and it seems that the majority of times wk_update calls decides to do
> nothing.
>
> Doubling /sys/block/sdb/queue/nr_requests to 256, seems to help abit: the
> nr_dirty pages is increasing more slowly.
> But I am unsure of side-effects and am afraid of increasing the starvation
> problem for mysql.
>
>
> I__am very much willing to work on this issue and see it fixed, but would
> like to tap into the knowledge of people here.
> So:
> * Have more people seen this or simular issues?
> * Is the hypothesis above a viable one?
> * Suggestions/pointers for further research and statistics I should measure
> to improve the understanding of this problem.
>
I don't think that noop-iosched tries to do anything to prevent
writes-starve-reads. Do you get better behaviour from any of the other IO
schedulers?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-21 10:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <C5E989F1.C0C7%jos@hyves.nl>
2009-03-20 18:26 ` Page Cache writeback too slow, SSD/noop scheduler/ext2 Jos Houtman
2009-03-21 10:53 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
[not found] <C5EB16F4.C318%jos@hyves.nl>
2009-03-22 16:53 ` Jos Houtman
2009-03-24 14:48 ` Nick Piggin
2009-03-25 5:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-27 16:59 ` Jos Houtman
2009-03-29 2:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-30 16:47 ` Jos Houtman
2009-03-31 0:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-31 12:16 ` Jos Houtman
2009-03-31 12:31 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-31 14:10 ` Jos Houtman
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=20090321035315.fc10cef6.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=jos@hyves.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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