From: "Bhatnagar, Rishabh" <risbhat@amazon.com>
To: <tytso@mit.edu>, <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>, <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<abuehaze@amazon.com>
Subject: EXT4 IOPS degradation in 5.10 compared to 5.4
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 17:48:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2532321d-614b-ac02-e921-db8e2b6bcbe8@amazon.com> (raw)
Hi Theodore/Jan
We have been seeing a consistent 3% degradation in IOPS score between
5.4 and 5.10 stable kernels while running fio tests.
I'm running test case on m6g.8xlarge AWS instances using arm64. The test
involves:
1. Creating 100GB volume with IO1 500 iops. Attaching it to the instance.
2. Setup and mount fs:
|> mke2fs -m 1 -t ext4 -b 4096 -L /mnt /dev/nvme1n1 > mount -t ext4 -o
noatime,nodiratime,data=ordered /dev/nvme1n1 /mnt|
3. Install fio package and run following test:
(running 16 threads doing random buffered 16kb writes on a file.
ioengine=psync, runtime=60secs)
|#!/bin/bash jobs=16 blocksize="16k" filesize=1000000 if [[ -n $1 ]];
then jobs=$1; fi if [[ -n $2 ]]; then blocksize=$2; fi /usr/bin/fio
--name=fio-test --directory=/mnt --rw=randwrite --ioengine=psync
--buffered=1 --bs=${blocksize} \ --max-jobs=${jobs} --numjobs=${jobs}
--runtime=30 --thread \ --filename=file0 --filesize=${filesize} \
--fsync=1 --group_reporting --create_only=1 > /dev/null sudo echo 1 >
/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches set -x echo "Running with jobs=${jobs}
filesize=${filesize} blocksize=${blocksize}" /usr/bin/fio
--name=fio-test --directory=/mnt --rw=randwrite --ioengine=psync
--buffered=1 --bs=${blocksize} \ --max-jobs=${jobs} --numjobs=${jobs}
--runtime=60 --thread \ --filename=file0 --filesize=${filesize} \
--fsync=1 --group_reporting --time_based|
After doing some kernel bisecting between we were able to pinpoint this
commit**that drops the iops score by 10~15 points (~3%).*
ext4: avoid unnecessary transaction starts during writeback
(6b8ed62008a49751fc71fefd2a4f89202a7c2d4d)
*
We see higher iops/bw/total io after reverting the commit compared to
base 5.10 kernel.
Although the average clat is higher after reverting the commit the
higher bw drives the iops score higher as seen in below fio output.
*Fio output (5.10.162):/
write: io=431280KB, bw=7186.3KB/s, iops=449, runt= 60015msec/*
/clat (usec): min=6, //*max=25942, avg=267.76,*//stdev=1604.25//
//lat (usec): min=6, //*max=25943, avg=267.93,*//stdev=1604.25//
//clat percentiles (usec)://
//| 1.00th=[ 9], 5.00th=[ 10], 10.00th=[ 16], 20.00th=[ 24],//
//| 30.00th=[ 34], 40.00th=[ 45], 50.00th=[ 58], 60.00th=[ 70],//
//| 70.00th=[ 81], 80.00th=[ 94], 90.00th=[ 107], 95.00th=[ 114],//
//| 99.00th=[10048], 99.50th=[14016], 99.90th=[20096], 99.95th=[21888],//
//| 99.99th=[24448]//
//lat (usec) : 10=3.46%, 20=12.54%, 50=26.66%, 100=41.16%, 250=13.64%//
//lat (usec) : 500=0.02%, 750=0.03%, 1000=0.01%//
//lat (msec) : 2=0.23%, 4=0.50%, 10=0.73%, 20=0.91%, 50=0.12%//
//cpu : usr=0.02%, sys=0.42%, ctx=299540, majf=0, minf=0//
//IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%//
//submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%//
//complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%//
//issued : total=r=0/w=26955/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0, drop=r=0/w=0/d=0//
//latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1//
//Run status group 0 (all jobs)://
//WRITE: io=431280KB, aggrb=7186KB/s, minb=7186KB/s, maxb=7186KB/s,
mint=60015msec, maxt=60015msec//
//Disk stats (read/write)://
//nvme1n1: ios=0/30627, merge=0/2125, ticks=0/410990, in_queue=410990,
util=99.94%/
*Fio output (5.10.162 with revert):*
/*write: io=441920KB, bw=7363.7KB/s, iops=460, runt= 60014msec*/
/clat (usec): min=6, //*max=35768, avg=289.09, *//stdev=1736.62//
//lat (usec): min=6, //*max=35768, avg=289.28,*//stdev=1736.62//
//clat percentiles (usec)://
//| 1.00th=[ 8], 5.00th=[ 10], 10.00th=[ 16], 20.00th=[ 24],//
//| 30.00th=[ 36], 40.00th=[ 46], 50.00th=[ 59], 60.00th=[ 71],//
//| 70.00th=[ 83], 80.00th=[ 97], 90.00th=[ 110], 95.00th=[ 117],//
//| 99.00th=[10048], 99.50th=[14144], 99.90th=[21632], 99.95th=[25984],//
//| 99.99th=[28288]//
//lat (usec) : 10=4.13%, 20=11.67%, 50=26.59%, 100=39.57%, 250=15.28%//
//lat (usec) : 500=0.03%, 750=0.03%, 1000=0.03%//
//lat (msec) : 2=0.20%, 4=0.64%, 10=0.80%, 20=0.86%, 50=0.18%//
//cpu : usr=0.01%, sys=0.43%, ctx=313909, majf=0, minf=0//
//IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%//
//submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%//
//complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%,
>=64=0.0%//
//issued : total=r=0/w=27620/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0, drop=r=0/w=0/d=0//
//latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=1//
//Run status group 0 (all jobs)://
//WRITE: io=441920KB, aggrb=7363KB/s, minb=7363KB/s, maxb=7363KB/s,
mint=60014msec, maxt=60014msec//
//Disk stats (read/write)://
//nvme1n1: ios=0/31549, merge=0/2348, ticks=0/409221, in_queue=409221,
util=99.88%/
Also i looked ext4_writepages latency which increases when the commit is
reverted. (This makes sense since the commit avoids unnecessary
transactions).
*./funclatency ext4_writepages -->(5.10.162)*
*avg = 7734912* nsecs, total: 134131121171 nsecs, *count: 17341*
*./funclatency ext4_writepages -->(5.10.162 with revert)*
*avg = 9036068* nsecs, total: 168956404886 nsecs, *count: 18698*
Looking at the journal transaction data I can see that the average
transaction commit time decreases after reverting the commit.
This probably helps in the IOPS score.
*5.10.162:*
/*cat /proc/fs/jbd2/nvme1n1-8/info *//--> After 1st test iteration
//2143 transactions (2143 requested), each up to 8192 blocks//
//average: //
//0ms waiting for transaction//
//0ms request delay//
//0ms running transaction//
//0ms transaction was being locked//
//0ms flushing data (in ordered mode)//
//20ms logging transaction//
////*20731us average transaction commit time*//
//51 handles per transaction//
//1 blocks per transaction//
//3 logged blocks per transaction/
*/cat /proc/fs/jbd2/nvme1n1-8/info/*/--> After 2nd test iteration
//4292 transactions (4292 requested), each up to 8192 blocks//
//average: //
//0ms waiting for transaction//
//0ms request delay//
//0ms running transaction//
//0ms transaction was being locked//
//0ms flushing data (in ordered mode)//
//20ms logging transaction//
/ /*26470us average transaction commit time*//
//51 handles per transaction//
//1 blocks per transaction//
//3 logged blocks per transaction/
*5.10.162 with revert:*
/*cat /proc/fs/jbd2/nvme1n1-8/info*///--> After 1st test iteration///
2092 transactions (2091 requested), each up to 8192 blocks//
//average: //
//0ms waiting for transaction//
//0ms request delay//
//20ms running transaction//
//0ms transaction was being locked//
//0ms flushing data (in ordered mode)//
//20ms logging transaction//
////*15981us average transaction commit time*//
//67 handles per transaction//
//1 blocks per transaction//
//2 logged blocks per transaction//
/
*/cat /proc/fs/jbd2/nvme1n1-8/info/*//--> After 2nd test iteration///
4263 transactions (4262 requested), each up to 8192 blocks//
//average: //
//0ms waiting for transaction//
//0ms request delay//
//10ms running transaction//
//0ms transaction was being locked//
//0ms flushing data (in ordered mode)//
//20ms logging transaction//
////*19795us average transaction commit time*//
//65 handles per transaction//
//1 blocks per transaction//
//2 logged blocks per transaction/
Looking at the commit it seems we should be avoiding unnecessary journal
transactions. This is reflected in the ext4_writepages latency.
But the transaction commit time seems to be increasing with this commit
leading to reduced IOPS. (atleast that's my theory).
Can you help look into why this commit introduces this IOPS regression?
Also any suggestions on running any more tests to isolate the issue are
welcome.
Thanks
Rishabh
next reply other threads:[~2023-01-12 1:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-12 1:48 Bhatnagar, Rishabh [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-01-12 2:06 EXT4 IOPS degradation in 5.10 compared to 5.4 Bhatnagar, Rishabh
2023-01-12 11:38 ` Jan Kara
2023-01-13 22:13 ` Bhatnagar, Rishabh
2023-01-19 2:48 ` Bhatnagar, Rishabh
2023-01-19 15:15 ` Jan Kara
2023-01-21 13:07 ` Linux kernel regression tracking (#update)
2023-01-12 14:54 ` Linux kernel regression tracking (#adding)
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=2532321d-614b-ac02-e921-db8e2b6bcbe8@amazon.com \
--to=risbhat@amazon.com \
--cc=abuehaze@amazon.com \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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